Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Evesham and Pershore Joint Hospital District) Bill.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Port of Manchester) Bill.

Bills to be read a Second time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (AGRICULTURE) ACT, 1936.

Mr. MAINWARING: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that certain surface colliery workers set to work in the colliery manager's garden are now regarded as agricultural workers and included in the Unemployment Insurance (Agriculture) Act, 1936; and will he state on what grounds they are so classified?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Ernest Brown): If the hon. Member will let me have particulars of the case or cases to which he refers, I shall be happy to inquire into the circumstances.

Oral Answers to Questions — STATISTICS.

Mr. MABANE: asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether he will consider including in the monthly figures relating to employment for each accounting area the percentage which the insured poulation bears to the total population in that area;
(2) whether he will state, as a percentage, the relation of the insured population to the total population in the case of Huddersfield and either Jarrow or, if that is not possible, the immediate accounting area which includes Jarrow?

Mr. E. BROWN: The only information in the possession of the Department with regard to the insured population in particular areas is that relating to the numbers of insured persons whose unemployment books are exchanged, in July of each year, at Employment Exchanges situated within those areas. As the areas served by particular Employment Exchanges do not correspond with the local authority areas in which they are situated, and as considerable numbers of unemployment books are exchanged at Employment Exchanges situated in areas other than those in which the insured persons are resident, I regret that it is not possible to calculate the ratio between the insured population and the total population of a particular locality.

Mr. MABANE: Does not my right hon. Friend think that in order to obtain a proper picture of the incidence of unemployment some such figure as this should necessarily be included in the monthly statistics relating to unemployment?

Mr. BROWN: When considering this question it is necessary to remember that other factors beside figures come in.

Mr. MABANE: Is it not approximately true that, whereas in Huddersfield about one-half of the total population are normally occupied in insurable occupations, in Jarrow rather less than a quarter of the total poulation is so occupied?

Mr. BROWN: My hon. Friend knows that in Huddersfield there is a large proportion of women insurably employed.

Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons in receipt of unemployment benefit and transitional payment allowances, respectively, at the Maesteg, Pontycymmer, Ogmore Vale, Aberkenfig, and Bridgend Labour Exchanges for the years 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, and 1935 to date?

Mr. BROWN: As the reply includes a Table of figures I will, if I may, cir-

The following Table shows the numbers of payments of insurance benefit and transitional payments or unemployment allowances made direct through the undermentioned Employment Exchanges during a week in November of each year from 1931 to 1936.


Week ended.
Maesteg
Pontycymmer
Ogmore Vale
Aberkeufig.
Bridgend.


20th November, 1936:


Insurance Benefit
398
260
534
140
369


 Unemployment Allowances
1,987
686
626
515
702


22nd November, 1935:


Insurance Benefit
566
159
212
184
442


Unemployment Allowances
2,100
790
638
544
736


23rd November, 1934:


Insurance Benefit
312
367
395
157
324


Transitional Payments
2,176
880
699
524
667


24th November, 1933:


Insurance Benefit
269
369
254
173
308


Transitional Payments
2,741
1,002
723
552
680


25th November, 1932:


Insurance Benefit
594
555
898
230
328


Transitional Payments
3,087
740
469
523
705


20th November, 1931:


Insurance Benefit
2,161
333
1,294
223
566


Transitional Payments
1,802
451
423
442
446


The figures do not include payments made through asssociations for which a geographical analysis is not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND SETTLEMENT ASSOCIATION ESTATES.

Mr. E. DUNN: asked the Minister of Labour how many men have been transferred to date from the Special Areas to the estates of the Land Settlement Association; how many of these men have completed training; how many are still in training; how many have already been joined by their families; what is the total number of men, women, and children thus transferred; and what is the estimated total figure for men, women, and children up to the end of the present year?

Mr. E. BROWN: I am informed by the Land Settlement Association that up to 30th November, 1936, 486 men had been transferred from the Special Areas to the estates of the Association; of these 14 have completed training and 472 are still in training; 246 have been joined by their families and the total number of men, women and juveniles transferred is 1,419. The Association estimate that about 1,750 men, women and juveniles will have been transferred up to the end of the year.

Mr. DUNN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it important that full

culate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT

Following is, the statement:

effect should be given to the recommendations of the Special Commissioner?

Mr. BROWN: There is another question about that.

Mr. DUNN: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered recommendation 15, page 163, of the recent report of the Commissioner for the Special Areas; and whether it is the Government's intention to adopt that recommendation and enable the full-time holdings programme of the Land Settlement Association to be steadily expanded and, if so, to what extent?

Mr. BROWN: Recruitment for the present programme of land settlement in England and Wales provides for an experiment based on settling some 2,000 families on full-time small holdings and it is not expected to be completed for about 12 months. The Commissioner's recommendation for expansion is being actively examined.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT FUND.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to tell the House how much money there


is in the Unemployment Insurance Fund; whether there is a surplus; and, if so, will he use it to help the unemployed to withstand the rigours of winter?

Mr. E. BROWN: At 21st November, 1936, the credit balance in the Unemployment Fund was about £37,500,000. No part of this sum can, however, be treated as a disposable surplus unless and until it is so declared by the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee, who are required by statute to report before the end of February next upon the condition of the fund at 31st December, 1936.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that a year ago I asked him, seeing that Christmas was coming on, if he would not give a hundredweight of coal to every unemployed family, and he said he had no money to do that? Now that they have money, will he not help the unemployed to withstand the rigours of winter?

Mr. BROWN: I have no power to do that at all. The report of the committee will be in my hands before the end of February, and I shall have to consider any recommendations they may make about such surplus as may be at their disposal, if any.

Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: Is it not a known fact that there is a surplus now?

Mr. BROWN: The issue is not whether there is a surplus, but whether there is a disposable surplus, which is a very different thing.

Oral Answers to Questions — INSURANCE (NON-MANUAL WORKERS).

Mr. STOREY: asked the Minister of Labour whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to introduce legislation to carry out the recommendations of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Commission that the salary limit for unemployment insurance for non-manual workers should be raised from £250 to £400 per annum?

Mr. E. BROWN: This matter is still under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE ENGINEERING WORK.

Mr. ANDERSON: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the overtime that is now being worked by Post Office engineers, he will take steps in conjunction with the Postmaster-General, to set up suitable training

centres in the Special Areas to teach suitable unemployed men Post Office engineering work, with the object of transferring these men when trained to positions of remunerative employment, and thus relieve the present staff of avoidable overtime and overwork

Mr. E. BROWN: I have received a communication from my right hon. Friend inviting the assistance of my Department in connection with a proposed scheme at Jarrow for the training, under Post Office auspices, of suitable unemployed men for Post Office engineering work. The matter is at present under discussion between the two Departments.

Mr. ANDERSON: Will assistance be given wherever possible?

Mr. BROWN: Full consideration will be given to the question in the discussions to which I have referred.

Oral Answers to Questions — ASSISTANCE.

Mr. ANDERSON: asked the Minister of Labour what is the total estimated sum that will be saved per year in the county of Cumberland as a result of the new Unemployment Assistance Board regulations and the application of the means test?

Mr. E. BROWN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. Mainwaring) on Tuesday last.

Mr. BATEY: asked the Minister of Labour by how much the estimate of £15,000,000 per year, given by his predecessor, has been reduced, as the estimate which was being saved owing to the means test?

Mr. BROWN: The estimate to which the hon. Member refers was related to transitional payments, which had regard to benefit rates and conditions. This is not generally the case with unemployment allowances, and I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of 16th July last to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) in which I pointed out the reasons why it is not now possible to give an estimate of the amount saved by the operation of the means test.

Mr. BATEY: If the Minister's predecessor could give an estimate, surely the Minister can?

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member has had a letter explaining to him the difference between the two things. I could not argue it at Question Time, but I gave a long explanation which he will find in the answer to which I have referred him.

Mr. BATEY: I will raise that on the Adjournment, too.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: asked the Minister of Labour, as on the last convenient date prior to 16th November, how many of the allowances paid by the Unemployment Assistance Board exceeded the amount which would have been payable to the same applicants under standard benefit?

Mr. BROWN: This information could not be ascertained without an examination as to eligibility for unemployment benefit and a computation in each individual case which I should not feel justified in undertaking.

Mr. WHITE: As this practice is increasing, can the right hon. Gentleman look into it with a view to getting some information?

Mr. BROWN: I have looked very carefully into it, and save on the terms contained in the answer, I do not see the possibility of any results.

Mr. JAMES GRIFFITHS: Will the right hon. Gentleman, at the same time, inquire in how many cases the amounts payable by the Unemployment Assistance Board were less than what would have been payable under standard benefit?

Mr. BROWN: That is an entirely different question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MONMOUTHSHIRE.

Mr. JENKINS: asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether he can supply particulars of the number of applications for unemployment benefit and the amount paid at the Employment Exchanges in Monmouthshire for the years 1929 to 1935; and similar information to the most recent date of the year 1936;
(2) whether he can supply particulars of the number of applications for transitional payments and unemployment assistance and the amount paid at the

Employment Exchanges in Monmouthshire for the years 1929 to 1935 and similar information to the most recent date for 1936?

Mr. E. BROWN: I am having the available information extracted, and will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPECIAL AREAS.

Mr. BATEY: asked the Minister of Labour whether the report expected by the Commissioner of Special Areas in regard to new industries, and now in the possession of the Government, recommends that the Government should themselves establish new industries or financially assist in the establishment of new industries in the distressed areas?

Mr. SEXTON: asked the Minister of Labour whether it is his intention to publish the results of the investigation of the inquiry by an expert firm on the question of possible industrial development in South-West Durham, which investigation was undertaken at the request of Mr. Malcolm Stewart when he was Commissioner for the Special Areas of England and Wales?

Mr. E. BROWN: I assume that the hon. Member refers to the report made to the Commissioner as a result of the investigation mentioned in paragraph 145 of the third report of the Commissioner for Special Areas, England and Wales. I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) on 16th November.

Mr. BATEY: Does not the Commissioner recommend that the Government should give assistance in starting new industries?

Mr. BROWN: It is not for me but for the Commissioner. If he thinks it necessary, he can embody the substance of any report sent to him in a report to me, and it is then only that the question of publication would arise.

Mr. BATEY: I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. LAWSON: asked the Minister of Labour whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce an amended Special Areas Bill, and whether he can say when it will be introduced?

Mr. BROWN: It is hoped that the proposed Bill to amend the Special Areas (Development and Improvement) Act, 1934, will be introduced soon after the House meets in January.

Mr. LAWSON: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask why he made an important announcement in public last night rather than to the House of Commons, particularly in view of the debates and discussions on this matter in recent days?

Mr. BROWN: It was in the public interest.

Mr. LAWSON: Is it not the recognised practice and custom of the House of Commons that Ministers should make statements of that kind in the House of Commons before making them outside?

Mr. BROWN: It is not the invariable rule.

Sir WILLIAM JENKINS: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the petition presented to this House from the South Wales distressed area was a representative one of all the local public bodies, large industrial concerns, churches, and public men; and will he give some indication of the action he proposes to take in response to the prayer?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I fully accept the hon. Member's description of the signatories to this petition. Its object is one which was fully debated in this House on 17th November, and I can add nothing to the undertaking which was then given that the Government would again give serious consideration to all the proposals which have been made by the Commissioners for the Special Areas.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Are we likely to have the Government's proposals in regard to this area available to the public and the House of Commons before Christmas?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say without notice.

Mr. ANDERSON: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new industries have been established in the Special Area of West Cumberland since the inauguration of the Special Areas Reconstruction Association, Limited; the total amount loaned; and how many additional people have been employed?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): As I indicated to the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. A. Jenkins) on 5th November, the Special Areas Reconstruction Association must consider each individual application on its merits and it would not be in the interests either of the association or of potential borrowers that the benefits received by various areas should be the subject of competitive comparisons. I am informed that the association has under consideration 12 applications for the establishment of new businesses or extensions to existing businesses in the West Cumberland area, but I am not in a position to state the amount of additional employment involved in these applications. I would remind the hon. Member that the association was established for the purpose of assisting small businesses and that the employment capacity of such businesses is necessarily limited.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC WORKS.

Mr. BATEY: asked the Minister of Labour whether a report arranged for by the Commissioner for the Special Areas, and which has now been received by the Government, in regard to public works, recommends that the Government should now encourage and financially assist in the carrying out of public works in the distressed areas?

Mr. SEXTON: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will publish the findings of the survey in South-West Durham as to the possibilities of public works in that area in the interests of public health and economic development, which survey was undertaken at the request of Mr. Malcolm Stewart when he was Commissioner for the Special Areas of England and Wales?

Mr. E. BROWN: I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) on 16th November.

Mr. BATEY: Surely if there has been a report in regard to relief works the House ought to know what it is?

Mr. BROWN: If the matter is of public interest, the Commissioner for Special Areas will make up his mind on what lines he shall report to me. It is quite impossible to have confidential reports


made, and information received on that basis, if publication is to follow and Members ask questions in the House.

Mr. BATEY: This is a matter in which the House is interested and has a right to know what is in the report. I will include that.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEASONAL AGRICULTURAL WORK.

Dr. LEECH: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that there are opportunities for employment in the North Norfolk and South Lincolnshire areas owing to a shortage of farm labour; and will be ascertain where men are wanted and then notify the unemployed in the distressed areas, and invite and, if necessary, train and assist suitable young men to transfer?

Mr. E. BROWN: I am aware that there ha been some difficulty in obtaining work-people for seasonal agricultural work in the districts to which my hon. Friend refers. My Department has endeavoured to assist the farmers in meeting this difficulty by every practicable means but efforts to transfer men from the depressed areas for this type of work have encountered serious obstacles.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this shortage goes further than seasonal work on farms? There is also a shortage of labour for Government work in the same district?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that the reason for the shortage of labour in Lincoln is the scandalous wages paid to the agricultural labourer?

Mr. BROWN: There are a number of reasons.

Oral Answers to Questions — TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT.

Mr. E. DUNN: asked the Minister of Labour in view of the fact that many men who have been unemployed for long periods will be employed for a few days at Christmas time by the Post Office, by local authorities, and by other persons, whether he will suspend the operation of the Unemployment Regulations with regard to temporary employment so that the men so employed may receive the maximum financial benefits arising from such employment?

Mr. E. BROWN: I have no power to alter the Regulations. I should point out that the Regulations already provide for a proportion of the applicants' earnings to be disregarded.

Mr. DUNN: Surely, the Minister must realise that there are thousands of people in this country who at Christmas time provide an extra day's work for unemployed men, and that not only the unemployed but the people they employ themselves offer strenuous resistance to the Regulations, and that it creates real hardship to the unemployed in this country?

Mr. BROWN: As I pointed out to the hon. Member, it is for that reason that a special disregard was put into the Regulations.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOOTS AND CLOTHING (CHILDREN, GLAMORGAN).

Sir W. JENKINS: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is taking any steps to ascertain the needs of boots and clothing of the school children of the unemployed persons in Glamorgan; and whether he will give some direction to supply them with the necessary comforts during the winter months?

Mr. E. BROWN: I understand that following a report made to the education committee of the Glamorgan County Council, a discussion took place between representatives of the council and of the Board of Education and the Unemployment Assistance Board, at which arrangements were made for an inquiry into the facts. If any of the children should prove to be dependents of persons in receipt of unemployment allowances, I have no doubt that the Unemployment Assistance Board will take any action that may be found to be necessary so far as their powers permit.

Oral Answers to Questions — HALTWHISTLE AND JARROW.

Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: asked the Minister of Labour what is the present percentage of unemployment for Halt-whistle and Jarrow, respectively?

Mr. E. BROWN: The number of insured persons, aged 16–64, recorded as unemployed at 26th October, 1936, at the Haltwhistle Employment Exchange represented 41.4 per cent. of the estimated total number insured of those ages in the area of that Exchange at July, 1935. The


corresponding figure for the Jarrow and Hebburn Employment Exchange was 31.1 per cent. Comparable figures for Jarrow alone are not available.

Colonel BROWN: May I take it from that answer that the position of Halt-whistle is far worse than that of Jarrow, and will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that Haltwhistle has gone in for no spectacular methods of publicity, and will he see that there is no preferential treatment?

Mr. BROWN: My hon. and gallant Friend must realise that the percentage is not the only thing: there is also the question of the numbers concerned.

Mr. J. J. DAVIDSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider the fact that Haltwhistle is not represented by a Labour Member is due to lack of initiative on its own behalf?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOLIDAYS WITH PAY.

Miss WARD: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will approach the employers' organisations with a view to discussing ways and means of establishing the custom of an annual holiday with pay?

Miss CAZALET: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider calling a conference of trades unions and employers' organisations for the purpose of discussing the possibility of increasing agreements for annual holidays with pay to employés?

Mr. E. BROWN: I am examining the steps which could most usefully be taken in this matter, and will bear in mind the suggestion made by my hon. Friends.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUNIOR TRANSFER CENTRES.

Miss WARD: asked the Minister of Labour how many centres for the treatment of physical disabilities among adolescents have been established; and how many cases have been dealt with?

Mr. E. BROWN: No centres have been established expressly for the treatment of physical disabilities among adolescents, but two centres, known as junior transfer centres, have been established in County Durham and Glamorgan for unemployed boys considered to be in need of a preliminary course. 477 boys passed through

these centres between July, 1935, when the first centre was opened, and October, 1936. A third centre near Huddersfield, with accommodation for 42 boys, will be opened early in 1937, and a fourth is under consideration. It is hoped shortly to provide additional facilities at such centres for youths found to be in need of the simpler forms of medical treatment. Accommodation for 20 girls has been put at the disposal of the Ministry at a centre in Norfolk, but, so far, no girls have taken advantage of these facilities. Apart from the provision of junior transfer centres, local education authorities have power to provide medical and dental treatment for unemployed boys and girls attending junior instruction centres. I have no statistics of the number who have received treatment.

Miss WARD: Can my right hon. Friend say whether adolescents obtaining work at juvenile instruction centres are entitled to eye treatment as well as dental and other treatment?

Mr. BROWN: I should like particular notice of that question. They are entitled to medical and dental treatment, but I am not sure about ophthalmic treatment.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Is it not a fact that the Secretary of State for War opened one of these centres at Aldershot on 13th October for men who could not pass for the Army?

Mr. MABANE: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the exact location of the centre to be established near Huddersfield has yet been determined?

Mr. BROWN: I will let my hon. Friend know.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: Should not services of this kind come from the Ministry of Health and the local authorities; and are we to understand that the Ministry of Labour is setting up an independent service?

Mr. BROWN: There is no setting up of an independent service. This is a survival of the most successful work of training centres. Attention was called to this matter many months ago by my hon. friend the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) and other hon. Members, and we are taking active steps to see if the need can be met.

Miss WARD: Can my right hon. Friend say whether, when children are placed in training classes and their fees are paid by the Unemployment Assistance Board, and when they attend the classes, they are prevented from taking advantage of them because their sight is defective and will he take steps to remedy what obviously is a very serious matter?

Mr. BROWN: I have already suggested to my hon. Friend that she should put down that question precisely; or if she wishes I will look into the point and let her know.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE (CONVENTIONS).

Mr. RILEY: asked the Minister of Labour how many draft conventions and recommendations dealing with the conditions of labour have been adopted by the International Labour Office from 1931 to date; and how many of such draft conventions and recommendations, respectively, have been ratified or put into operation by His Majesty's Government?

Mr. E. BROWN: From and including 1931 12 conventions and four recommendations dealing with the conditions of labour have been adopted by the International Labour Conference. Of these, two conventions have been ratified, and one recommendation accepted, by His Majesty's Government, and steps are being taken to ratify three further conventions and to accept one further recommendation.

Mr. RILEY: asked the Minister of Labour whether there are any draft conventions or recommendations made by the International Labour Office since 1931 which have not yet been brought before Parliament; and, if so, which such draft conventions and recommendations are?

Mr. E. BROWN: All the conventions and recommendations adopted by the International Labour Conference since 1931 and communicated to His Majesty's Government have been brought before Parliament in the form of Command Papers.

Oral Answers to Questions — NON-PAYMENT OF FINES, ETC. (IMPRISONMENT).

Mr. TURTON: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the

number of persons committed to prison in default of payment of rates, of wife's maintenance allowance, of bastardy arrears, and of fines in the first nine months of the years 1935 and 1936, respectively?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): The total number of persons in these categories who were committed to prison during the first nine months of 1935 was 12,547, and during the corresponding period of 1936 was 8,701. As the details involve a number of figures, with my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mrs. TATE: Is my hon. Friend aware that since the passing of the last Act, unless magistrates clerks have very great facilities they are unable to find out whether husbands are or are not in a position to maintain their wives, and therefore these men cannot be sent to prison, and that this is having a most serious effect in the case of many married women?

Following are the details:

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA WARE (ALUMINA).

Mr. HOLLINS: asked the Home Secretary whether he has any later information, since the statement made in this House on 30th July, 1936, with regard to medical opinion on the question of the substitution of alumina for flint as the bedding medium for English china ware; and whether the doctors are now of the opinion that alumina is not in itself productive of serious disease?

Mr. LLOYD: The Industrial Pulmonary Diseases Committee of the Medical Research Council, who have been investigating this matter, have prepared a report indicating that they have been unable to find any evidence that the inhalation of alumina dust has caused fibrosis of the lungs, and the council are about to publish the report for the information of the industry and others concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE (WARWICKSHIRE).

Captain STRICKLAND: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that in the county of Warwick there is one constable to every 959 people, as compared with one officer per 1,137 persons in the county of Derby, and one officer per 1,245 persons in Leicestershire; and whether he will inform the House as to the reason for this disparity?

Mr. LLOYD: My right hon. Friend is aware of the figures quoted by my hon. and gallant Friend. The strengths of the county police forces are fixed by the respective standing joint committees, subject to his approval. My right hon. Friend's duty is to satisfy himself that the strengths are sufficient for the proper carrying out of the duties of the police and that, if augmentations are proposed, they are reasonably necessary for this purpose. Population is only one of the factors to be taken into account; crime and traffic are other factors, and some disparities in the proportions of police to population are only to be expected.

Mr. EVERARD: Does not this show quite clearly that the people in my constituency are much more law-abiding than the people in that of my hon. and gallant Friend?

Captain STRICKLAND: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the Chief Constable of Warwickshire has asked for additional help in the strength of the constabulary; and what reasons he has given for this request?

Mr. LLOYD: I do not know whether the Chief Constable has made any such application to the standing joint committee: they have not applied to my right hon. Friend recently for approval to an increase of strength.

Oral Answers to Questions — ACQUITTAL (CHELMSFORD QUARTER SESSIONS).

Mr. SORENSEN: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Percival Peck, of Leyton, who was acquitted at the Chelmsford Quarter Sessions, on 20th November, after having been previously sentenced to imprisonment at Stratford Police Court; and whether, in view of the evidence and the circumstances of the case, he will secure compensation for this man both for his loss of earnings and for wrongful imprisonment?

Mr. LLOYD: My right hon. Friend has obtained particulars of the case to which the hon. Member refers, but he can find no sufficient reason for recommending any payment to the defendant from public funds in respect of his conviction, which was subsequently set aside on appeal to quarter sessions.

Mr. SORENSEN: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise the gross unfairness and injustice that have been done to this particular man; and is he also aware that he was arrested on 8th October, was not allowed to have any legal assistance and was sentenced on 9th October, the very next day, to three months' imprisonment, served eight days of that imprisonment, and was then released on bail because by that time the police had come to understand that there was a very grave doubt whether the man was guilty; and, in those circumstances, does he not feel that a very grave injustice has been done and that this man is entitled to compensation?

Mr. LLOYD: The facts were placed before my right hon. Friend, who does not take the view that this is a case for reimbursement.

Mr. THURTLE: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there is a feeling that if this man had been of a different social class he would have been treated differently?

Mr. SORENSEN: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE CINEMA, BETHNAL GREEN (ACCIDENT).

Mr. THORNE: asked the Home Secretary whether he can give the House any information in connection with the accident to a youth of 17 years who was caught in a dynamo at the Empire Cinema, Bethnal Green; and whether the dynamo was properly guarded in accordance with the regulations?

Mr. LLOYD: I understand that the boy was caught on an unfenced coupling. He was sent to hospital but returned home the same night and is now an out-patient. The Factory Acts do not apply to the plant in question, but I understand that guards will be fitted on the coupling.

Mr. THORNE: Does not that show that the employers were negligent and that they ought to be prosecuted?

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTORING OFFENCES.

Captain STRICKLAND: asked the Home Secretary whether he can inform the House as to the proportion of police prosecutions per constable for motoring offences in Warwickshire, Derbyshire, and Lancashire, respectively, for the latest comparable period of 12 months?

Mr. LLOYD: Taking the number of such offences which were dealt with by

Mr. LLOYD: The Factory Acts do not apply to the plant in question.

Sir J. NALL: Are not these cases dealt with under another Act?

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE (APPEALS) ACT, 1927.

Mr. DAY: asked the Home Secretary the number of appeals made to him from the decisions of the discipline board under the Police (Appeals) Act, 1927, that were successful?

Mr. LLOYD: With the hon. Member's permission I will circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. DAY: Is it not a fact that the reason why some of the appeals were not successful is that the people were not legally represented?
Following is the information:
police prosecution during 1935 and the approximate average daily police strength during that year, the figures for each of the counties mentioned are: Warwickshire, 38.3; Derbyshire, 15.7; Lancashire, 9.9.

Captain STRICKLAND: Does my hon. Friend attribute this high percentage to the criminal proclivities of the Warwickshire motorists or to misplaced zeal on the part of anti-motorist police?

Oral Answers to Questions — FACTORIES BILL.

Mr. WHITE: asked the Home Secretary when the Factories Bill will be introduced?

Mr. LLOYD: I regret that I cannot give a date at present.

Mr. WHITE: May I take it that there has been no change in Government policy in regard to the introduction of this Bill?

Mr. LLOYD: Certainly.

Mr. THORN: Is there any intention on the part of the Government to shelve the Bill?

Mr. LLOYD: No, Sir.

Mr. DENMAN: Has not this Bill been promised before Christmas?

Oral Answers to Questions — RACECOURSE BETTING CONTROL BOARD.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: asked the Home Secretary the amount that the Racecourse Betting Control Board will devote to worthy objects during the next year?

Mr. LLOYD: My right hon. Friend is informed by the Racecourse Betting Control Board that they anticipate that a sum of about £120,000 will be available for distribution next year for purposes conducive to the improvement of breeds of horses or the sport of horse racing, or the advancement and encouragement of veterinary science and education.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRIAL OF PEERS (ABOLITION OF PRIVILEGE) BILL.

Mr. TINKER: asked the Prime Minister when the Trial of Peers (Abolition of Privilege) Bill will be brought forward for the Second Reading?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not in a position to state whether the Bill referred to by the hon. Member will be brought forward again this Session.

Mr. TINKER: As the Peers themselves are anxious that something should be done about this question of Privilege, cannot the right hon. Gentleman see his way to accede to their request, and put them in the same position as an ordinary civilian?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

UNEMPLOYED CERTIFIED TEACHERS,

Mr. TINKER: asked the President of the Board of Education how many certified teachers there are unemployed; and to what extent would the number of children in a class have to be reduced to absorb them?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I regret that the board have no means of ascertaining how many teachers are at any particular time definitely seeking employment and I have, therefore, no basis on which to construct the estimate required by the hon. Member.

Mr. TINKER: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a vast number of teachers who have passed out of the colleges who cannot get employment? Cannot something be done to absorb them?

Mr. STANLEY: I cannot tell the number of teachers who have passed out of the colleges and have not got employment in grant-aided schools. I cannot say how many are not seeking teaching employment or how many are in schools that are not grant-aided.

Mr. JENKINS: Would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to get that information almost immediately from the education authorities?

Mr. STANLEY: I am afraid not.

Mr. MAXTON: Is not a considerable amount of public money spent in training these teachers? Has not the Government some interest in knowing how much of that money has reached its destined end in teachers actually engaged in the service? Are the others about whom the right hon. Gentleman speaks to be allowed to go where they please after having received public grants?

Mrs. TATE: Would it not be possible to rectify this matter if we no longer employed uncertificated teachers?

Mr. TINKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to get the information?

Mr. STANLEY: I cannot get accurate information. I can, of course, get some of it.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Does the right, hon. Gentleman realise that these teachers are uninsured, that they have no unemployment insurance and that they are often reduced nearly to a position of starvation?

Mr. EDE: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman ask the training colleges to tell him how many of those who have left the colleges are still in the profession?

Mr. STANLEY: We do that from time to time.

ROMAN CATHOLIC SCHOOL, BOSTON (LEAFLET).

Mr. THURTLE: asked the President of the Board of Education whether it is the view of his Department that leaflets attacking Communism may properly be distributed during school hours in non-provided elementary schools receiving grants from public funds; and if this is the basis of his refusal to take any action in the case of the distribution of such pamphlets at St. Mary's Roman Catholic school, Boston?

Mr. STANLEY: In view of the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church towards the anti-religious teaching associated with Communism, I do not regard the distribution in a Roman Catholic non-provided school of a leaflet on Communism published by the Catholic Truth Society as infringing the principle of the impropriety of permitting the distribution of political literature to school children during school hours.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of the arguments applied against Communism in this leaflet might easily be applied against Socialism, and is he aware that by refusing to take action in this matter he is opening a wide door for political propaganda in State-aided schools, and will he therefore reconsider the matter?

Mr. STANLEY: I would if I thought that it was opening a wide door for political propaganda, but in this particular case I regard this leaflet as in the nature not of political but of religious propaganda.

Mr. LOGAN: In view of the pernicious literature of the Communist party, which calls religion "dope," may I remind the questioner of the fact that in Russia no religion must be taught to an adult

under 18 years of age, and is it not essential as a protection to the faith and morals of Catholic children that the Catholic Church should defend them against pernicious literature?

Mr. MORGAN JONES: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that he has enunciated a principle of the very gravest political importance, and whether he does not recognise that other people from another point of view may equally justify political propaganda on their side? In that case, will he not reconsider the announcement that he has just made?

Mr. STANLEY: I entirely disagree with the assumptions in the hon. Member's question. I do not think that this enlarges the position at all. I regard this particular pamphlet in this particular school as part of the religious teaching of the school, and not as political propaganda.

Mr. THURTLE: In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactorily nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I give notice that I shall raise this matter at the earliest opportunity on the Adjournment.

FILMS.

Mr. DAY: asked the President of the Board of Education the number of education authorities that are at present using sound films for educational purposes; whether the reports on these films have been satisfactory and give particulars of the country of origin and whether it is the policy of the board to further recommend and/or approve the extension in the use of similar films?

Mr. STANLEY: My Department has no detailed information as to the number of local education authorities using sound films, but I will try to obtain it. I have no complete information as to the country of origin of such films, though I understand that almost all of those at present in use are of British origin. As I have already said, I am anxious to see an extension of the use of films in schools as an educational medium and the new edition of the board's Handbook of Suggestions will contain references to their educational value. Various experiments are being carried out in London and elsewhere, and the board's inspectors are also making investigations.

Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman recommend to the authorities that they should use only British films for this purpose?

RECREATION CENTRES.

Mr. WAKEFIELD: asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the recent Government pronouncement concerning measures to be taken for improving the general standard of health of the nation, he will consider the building of stadia or suitable recreation centres, to include covered swimming baths, gymnasiums, and running tracks for the use of the adolescent population?

Mr. STANLEY: My hon. Friend's suggestions will be considered in connection with the Government's scheme, and I would ask him to await their proposals on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

NUTRITION.

Mr. MABANE: asked the Minister of Health whether he has any further positive proposals to make for improving the nutrition of the people, as a necessary preliminary to proposals for improving the general physical condition?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am not yet in a position to announce any further proposals of this kind.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider it a shameful thing that there should be such delay in extending the milk experiment all over the country?

Sir K. WOOD: The right hon. Member will find that I have dealt with the matter fully in a recent speech which I made.

Mr. CARTLAND: May I ask when my right hon. Friend will be in a position to make a statement?

Sir K. WOOD: My answer, I think, covers that point.

WATER SUPPLIES.

Miss WARD: asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the report of the joint committee on the re-organisation of the water supplies of the country; and what action does he propose to take in the matter?

Mr. LAWSON: asked the Minister of Health whether he has yet arrived at any decision in respect to the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Water Resources and Supplies and, in particular, to the recommendation that a central advisory water board should be set up; and whether he can state his decision?

Sir K. WOOD: I have considered this report. I cannot hold out any prospect of water legislation this Session; but I have decided, as a first step, after consultation with the other Departments concerned, to set up a central advisory water committee. The terms of reference and constitution of the committee are now being formulated.

Miss WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that some of the suggestions made in the report were originally made as long ago as 1921, and if he cannot promise legislation this Session might we have an assurance that there will be legislation before the dissolution of this Parliament?

Mr. LEVY: May I ask whether it is suggested that this central advisory board should control the regional advisory committees which were set up in various parts of the country?

Sir K. WOOD: Obviously this committee will advise.

Mr. W. A. ROBINSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why no replies have been sent to the letters I have addressed to him in regard to the shortage of water supply in the parish of Sealand, in the county of Flint?

Sir K. WOOD: I am sorry that no reply has been received, and I will look into the matter.

MENTAL PATIENTS (MALARIAL TREATMENT).

Mr. SORENSEN: asked the Minister of Health whether he could give the number of patients in mental hospitals during each of the past five years who have received malarial treatment for general paralysis of the insane; and how many of such patients are deemed to have recovered as a result of such treatment?

Sir K. WOOD: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The numbers of patients in mental hospitals who have received malarial treatment during the last five years for which particulars are available are as follow:

1930
702


1931
737


1932
690


1933
639


1934
646

Over 10 per cent. of those treated in each of these years were discharged "recovered" within the year. Complete information is not at present available as to the total number of recoveries among those treated over the period of five years.

DRAINAGE OF TRADE PREMISES BILL.

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: asked the Minister of Health whether he can now state definitely whether he will, at an early date, introduce the Public Health (Drainage of Trade Premises) Bill, which was passed in another place last Session and received a First Reading in this House?

Sir K. WOOD: I am giving this matter sympathetic consideration, but I cannot yet say whether the introduction of the Bill, as a Government Measure, will be practicable in the present Session.

Mr. ADAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman do what he can to minimise the delay, as river pollution is continuing unchecked at present?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir, I appreciate the position, and the hon. Member will, I hope, appreciate the state of Parliamentary business.

COUNTY COUNCILS (SERVICES).

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: asked the Minister of Health whether he will give a list of the county councils which have, under the Local Government Act, 1929, transferred from the public assistance committee to the appropriate committee of the council their powers under the following Acts, respectively: the Public Health Acts, the Mental Deficiency Acts, the Maternity and Child Welfare Act, 1918, and the Tuberculosis Act, 1921?

Sir K. WOOD: As the answer involves a tabular statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The following county councils have made declarations under Section 5 of the Local Government Act, 1929, that certain assistance is to be provided exclusively by virtue of the Acts referred to in the question, and not by way of poor relief:

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. HOLLINS: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that it is the general practice of approved societies to send all their married women who apply for benefit under the National Health Insurance Act to the regional medical officers before any payment of benefit is made; and whether he will consider the appointment of lady regional medical officers to examine all women who may be sent to them by approved societies?

Sir K. WOOD: Where an approved society is in doubt as to the incapacity for work of any member claiming sickness or disablement benefit, it is entitled to refer the member to a regional medical officer for a second opinion, but I cannot agree that it is the general practice of societies to take this step in the case of all married women who apply for benefit. The regional medical staff already includes some women, and all vacancies on the staff are open to qualified women applicants equally with men, but I have no reason to think that there is any general desire that all insured women referred to the regional medical service should be examined by women.

Mr. HOLLINS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many lady practitioners are engaged already?

Sir K. WOOD: No, but I will make inquiries and inform the hon. Member.

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.

Mr. W. JOSEPH STEWART: asked the Minister of Health whether it is the intention of the Government to equalise the cost of public assistance throughout the country so as to help local authorities in the Special Areas to meet the cost of relief of the aged and sick poor, who are increasing in proportion to the rest of the population in these areas owing to the transfer of the young and able-bodied to other parts of the country?

Sir K. WOOD: I cannot anticipate the general statement which will be made in due course of the Government's policy in relation to this and other proposals affecting the Special Areas.

Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this would be a greater relief to distressed areas than perhaps any other thing he could do?

Mr. STEWART: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cost of public assistance has increased in these areas, and can he give us an assurance that something will be done to help local governing bodies who are working under great disabilities?

Sir K. WOOD: I have already said that I cannot anticipate the statement which the Government will make on this matter.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Sir ROBERT YOUNG: asked the Minister of Health whether an old age pensioner, whose pension has been withheld owing to his entry into a Poor Law institution, has to reclaim his pension; and, if so, whether the pension when regranted is paid from the day he leaves the institution or whether it is renewed automatically on his leaving the Poor Law institution?

Sir K. WOOD: Where the old age pension is payable under or by virtue of the Contributory Pensions Acts, a pensioner who has been disqualified while an inmate of a Poor Law institution is riot required to make a fresh claim for pension on his discharge. On receipt of a notification that he has left the institution his pension order book, which was withdrawn on his admission,

is re-issued to him and payment of pension is due on the first pay-day following his discharge. Questions asking for information as to the procedure with regard to pensions payable under the Old Age Pensions Acts of 1908 to 1924 independently of the Contributory Pensions Acts should be addressed to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES CONTRACTS (COASTAL TRANSPORT).

Captain PETER MACDONALD: asked the Minister of Health whether any steps are being taken by his Department to ensure that it is made a condition of all contracts given by local authorities that, where coastal transport of material is involved in the fulfilment of such contracts, such material such be carried in British ships?

Sir K. WOOD: I have no power to give any general direction to local authorities on this subject but, as I have stated in reply to previous questions, I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, on the subject.

Captain MACDONALD: As another Government Department, the Admiralty, includes this provision in their contracts, cannot the Ministry of Health take the same steps?

Sir K. WOOD: I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend on this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

STATISTICS.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: asked the Minister of Health whether he can now state the number of houses built during the six months ended 30th September, 1936, and, for comparison, the total during the same period of 1935?

Sir K. WOOD: The half-yearly publication showing the housing position at 30th September, 1936, will be available very shortly, and I would ask my hon. Friend to await its issue.

SLUM AREAS (REDEVELOPMENT).

Mr. LOGAN: asked the Minister of Health whether he is prepared to advocate the redevelopment of slum areas


rather than extension of towns into the countryside; whether he is aware of the intensification of the satellite town poverty problem caused by housing unemployed in outer areas; and what steps, if any, he is taking to remedy the grievance?

Sir K. WOOD: The extent to which the housing needs of a district can best be met by the redevelopment of central areas or by other building is a matter for the consideration of the local authority. Where redevelopment schemes are undertaken under the powers conferred upon local authorities by the Act of 1935—and I may congratulate the hon. Member on the fact that Liverpool has been the first authority to obtain approval of such a scheme—the expeditious execution of a scheme may well involve both types of development.

Mr. LOGAN: In regard to the physical trouble, which I know exists, is it not possible to get returns of the various housing developments which have taken place to see how far injury is being caused in this way?

Sir K. WOOD: Perhaps the hon. Member will have a word with me about this matter.

Sir J. NALL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take up this matter with the Manchester City Council in view of the deplorable state of certain parts of Manchester?

Sir K. WOOD: If the hon. Member will communicate with me, I will look into the matter.

PLAYING FIELDS.

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: asked the Minister of Health how many playing fields have been provided by local authorities in each of the last five years; and what steps arc being taken by the Ministry to encourage local authorities to make such provision?

Sir K. WOOD: The acreage of open spaces for which loans have been sanctioned in the last five years is 2,745, 1,523, 1,454, 4,440 and 4,732 respectively. Of this acreage, about one-third is reserved for letting to clubs, and a large part of the remainder is used for organised games. I am always prepared to entertain and do in fact encourage applica-

tions for loans for the purpose from local authorities. It is part of their duty in the preparation of town planning schemes to review the need for playing fields.

Mr. BELLENGER: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to contribute towards the expenses in connection with these playing fields?

Sir K. WOOD: That is a matter for the local authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

INDUSTRY (SUBSIDIES).

Mr. DAVIDSON: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount granted in subsidies, indirect and direct, to industry in Scotland, England, and Wales, respectively?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the answer is rather long and contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. DAVIDSON: In view of the fact that a greatly increased sum is now being paid out for Poor Law relief in the country, has the right hon. Gentleman any information that these subsidies are being used to the greatest advantage?

Following is the answer:

The approximate amounts for the current financial year are as follow:

£


Scotland
2,031,000


England and Wales
9,402,000

In addition, grants totalling £1,660,000 have been provided in respect of which no allocation is possible. Allocation between England and Wales is possible only to a limited extent without a disproportionate expenditure of time and money, and any figures which could be given would only be misleading. The above figures do not include anything in respect of the operation of import duties, derating, and Government guarantees, the benefits from which it is not possible to express in terms of money, or of other forms of indirect financial assistance not in the nature of subsidy.

INCOME TAX.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is able to state, approximately, the amount of


revenue that is obtained annually for Income Tax purposes in cases where it appears that sums entered as expenses have been used for the purposes of bribery or secret commissions and tax is obtained either from the recipients or the donors?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. No statistics are available which would enable such an estimate to be made.

Mr. MANDER: Are we to assume that the amount is substantial?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As I have no statistics, I cannot say whether it is substantial or not.

SUEZ CANAL COMPANY.

Sir ARNOLD WILSON: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to give a revised estimate of the sum he expects to receive during the current financial year by way of dividend on the holdings of His Majesty's Government in the Suez Canal Company?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The amount received up to date during the current financial year by way of dividend on the holdings of His Majesty's Government in the Suez Canal Company is £1,575,931. I am not at present in a position to give an estimate of the amount to be received during the remainder of the current financial year.

Mr. NOEL-BAKER: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what were the proceeds from the transport of poison gas?

UNITED STATES (BRITISH DEBT).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any information as to negotiations in Paris concerning the French debt to America; and whether he will intimate to the Government of the United States,of America that His Majesty's Government are also anxious to settle in like manner?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that no negotiations of the kind referred to in the first part of the question are taking place. In reply to the second part of the question, I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Note addressed to the United States Government on 7th June last (Command Paper. No. 5189).

NATIONAL DEFENCE COMPANIES (INLAND REVENUE CLERKS).

Mr. MAXWELL: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that certain clerks in the Inland Revenue office in King's Lynn have been refused permission to join the National Defence Corps; and whether this decision can be reconsidered?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Members of the National Defence Companies must be over 45 or unfit for active service and are not liable for any service or training except on the threat of, or during, war. It would not be possible for Departments to decide in advance of such an emergency which members of their staff, being over 45 or unfit for active service, could be spared for service with the Companies, and which could more usefully be employed in the machinery of civil government. In these circumstances it has been decided that it would not be desirable for Departments to great permission to members of their staff to join the Companies.

Mr. MAXWELL: Does my right hon. Friend not think it is very undesirable that Government Departments should be thought to be discouraging recruiting in any way whatever?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I quite agree, but the hon. Member should consider that these corps are recruited not for active service, but for home duty, and that in any emergency it is most important to maintain the machinery of civil government.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Does my right hon. Friend think it is possible for manufacturers, for instance, or other employers of labour, to come to a decision in their own cases when the Government say it is impossible?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I think the answer which I gave in relation to the importance of the maintenance of civil government fully covers that point.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, it does not. The point is not answered.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

MILK MARKETING.

Mr. C. S. TAYLOR: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the Milk Marketing Board have opened factories in areas already adequately served by creameries in which no milk has remained unsold; that they have induced producers to cease supplying these creameries and to send their milk during the new contract year to the board's factories and, in some cases, have issued contract forms to their own buyers before these were available to other purchasers; that the board are endeavouring to capture the trade of wholesalers of milk by canvassing their retail customers; and will he take steps to prevent this producers' body from further derationalising an industry which, in the interests of the consuming public, urgently requires rationalisation?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. S. Morrison): Under the powers conferred upon them by the Milk Marketing Scheme, the Milk Marketing Board have established factories for the manufacture of certain milk products. The board have informed me that, with one exception, it is not the case that the factories have been placed in areas already adequately served by private creameries, nor is it the case that they have induced producers to cease supplying existing creameries. The board state that in two areas, through an oversight, contracts were issued to certain, producers a day before they were made generally available, a circumstance which, I am informed, is not likely to recur. The board have also informed me that, in common with other wholesalers of milk, they have canvassed retailers. The board consider it imperative that they should have at least one factory in each of the 11 regions to enable them to discharge satisfactorily their duty of accepting milk from registered producers who are unable to find a buyer on the terms prescribed by the board, to obtain practical experience of the costs of manufacture and of the realisation value of the product when marketed and to assess the utilisation value of milk. The board feel that, in the absence of data obtained from their own experience in the marketing and utilisation of milk, they may be placed at a serious disadvantage in attempting to do justice to

milk producers and, incidentally, to purchasers of milk as well, when negotiating the prices at which milk is to be sold under contract.

Mr. TAYLOR: Is it not a fact that certain officials of the Milk Board did abuse certain privileged information which was at their disposal to the sufferance of existing manufacturers

Mr. MORRISON: No, Sir, I am not prepared to accept that at all. I would say that if any creamery has a grievance against the action of the board in this matter, machinery exists under the Agricultural Marketing Act, Section 9, by which the matter can be thoroughly investigated.

LOANS.

Mr. LIDDALL: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has considered the scheme which has been submitted to him which would provide, through the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, loans at the rate of 3½ per cent. interest; and whether he is prepared to adopt the proposals outlined in the scheme?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: The scheme referred to would involve financial assistance from the Exchequer in order to release borrowers from the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation from one of the terms on which they contracted their long-term loans, and I regret that I cannot see my way to adopt the proposal.

Mr. LIDDALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman not make proposals to the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation urging it to adopt a scheme providing cheap credit for farmers?

Mr. MORRISON: My hon. Friend asked me about proposals. I told him they could not properly be carried into effect without financial aid from the Exchequer, and he and the House will appreciate that if one class of borrowers were granted aid, it would be very difficult to resist granting similar aid to others, which would involve a very large sum.

Mr. LIDDALL: Was it not contemplated by Parliament that cheap credit should be given to the farmers?

Mr. LIDDALL: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation have the sum of approximately


£1,800,000 available for loans to agriculturists and that less than £500,000 was let out on loan for the year ending 31st March, 1936, he will make representations to the board with a view to a lower rate of interest than 4½ per cent. being charged for these loans?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: The Agricultural Mortgage Corporation is prepared to lend at a basic interest rate of 4½ per cent. money that was raised by Debenture Stock issued at from 4½ per cent. to 5 per cent. This stock cannot be redeemed before 1959, and it can only be purchased in the open market at the present time at a considerable premium. I regret that, in the circumstances, I am unable to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. LIDDALL: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that nearly £2,000,000 is invested in securities bringing 3 per cent. which would be acceptable to farmers on loan at, say, 3½ per cent.?

Mr. MORRISON: This scheme was floated at a time when interest rates were higher than they are at present, and we could not adopt the proposal without Exchequer grants. As I said in reply to my hon. Friend's previous question, if such assistance from the public funds were given to one class of borrowers, it would not be possible to refuse it to others, and the charge on the Exchequer might be very great.

FOODSTUFFS (HOME PRODTJCTION).

Mr. DAY: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will make a statement as to the Government's policy with regard to the home production of foodstuffs and the measures it is proposed to take for the purpose of increasing these supplies?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: I assume that the hon. Member has in mind the question of home production of foodstuffs as a Defence measure. As indicated in reply to previous questions, the whole question of appropriate measures to secure the food supply of this country in time of war is under review by the Committee of Imperial Defence, with whom my Department is in close touch. I am not, however, in a position to make any statement.

Mr. DAY: The right hon. Gentleman mentions time of war: will he answer the question with regard to time of peace?

Mr. MORRISON: That is a question of the general agricultural policy of the Government, and I will tell the hon. Member that from 1930 to the present time, agricultural production in England and Wales has increased by 20 per cent.

Mr. BURKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's agricultural policy of restricting supplies has led to a continued advance in the price of bacon?

CARLTON HOUSE TERRACE.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Minister of Agriculture the names of the members of the consultative committee appointed in connection with alterations in Carlton House Terrace; what cases they have dealt with since their appointment; and whether they were consulted recently in the case of 9, Carlton House Terrace?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: The names of the members of the Crown Lands Advisory Committee are as follow:

The Rt. Hon. Lord Gorell, C.B.E., M.C. (Chairman).
The Rt. Hon. Lord Jessel, C.B., C.M.G.
Mr. E. V. Lucas, C.H., LL.D.
Sir John Oakley, C.B.E.
Mr. Frank Pick, LL.B.
Sir Raymond Unwin, F.R.I.B.A.

Since their appointment 11 cases have been dealt with by the committee, including Carlton House Terrace itself, the White House, Albany Street, the new building on the site of the old Geological Museum in Piccadilly, Eltham Palace and a number of small schemes. In their report on Carlton House Terrace, the committee, while they considered it important that the facade, especially on the Mall side, should be preserved, stated that they had no objection to internal conversion schemes for residential purposes. The Commissioners of Crown Lands, therefore did not consider it necessary to consult the committee as regards the alterations now being carried out at 9, Carlton House Terrace, which are almost entirely internal. Arrangements have, however, been made by the Commissioners, in consultation with the Embassy and with the officials of the Victoria and Albert Museum, for the preservation of objects and architectural features considered to be of special interest, and measures have been taken on


the advice of Professor Tristram for preserving and where necessary repairing the Watts' frescoes which are on the walls of one of the rooms.

OYAL AIR FORCE (RECRUITING,DOMINIONS).

Sir A. WILSON: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what, if any, restrictions and what regulations are in force regarding the acceptance of recruits from the Irish Free State or other of the Dominions?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): Recruits from the Irish Free State or other Dominions who present themselves in the United Kingdom may be accepted without restriction under the ordinary regulations.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether conditions in the Irish Free State are still such that men like the late Admiral Somerville, who endeavour to obtain recruits for His Majesty's Forces, run the risk of being murdered and the murderers remaining unpunished?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

PENNY POSTAGE.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the Post Office financial statement just issued, in which it is stated that there is an available balance of £420,529 after deducting the fixed contribution to the Exchequer, he will now consider the advisability of reverting to the ld. postage for letters?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Walter Womersley): The restoration of penny postage with a half-penny postcard would mean an immediate reduction of about £7,300,000 in the revenue from existing letter traffic and of about £800,000 in that from postcards—a total of £8,100,000. This loss of revenue would probably be reduced by about £600,000, the estimated amount of the net profit on new traffic and on the diversion

of existing traffic to a higher-rated category. My right hon. Friend fully appreciates the general desire for a return to penny postage but he regrets that in view of the sacrifice of revenue involved he is at present unable to hold out any hope of an early restoration.

WORKING HOURS.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will state the present position with regard to the request of the Union of Post Office Workers for the introduction of a 40-hour five-day week; and whether he will consider the advisability of adopting this proposal as an example by the Government to employers generally?

Sir W. WOMERSLEY: My right hon. Friend made it clear to the deputation from the Union of Post Office Workers who put before him their claim for a 40-hour week that, for the reasons which he then gave, he could not afford them any hope that he would be in a position to accept their claim in the form in which it was presented to him but he promised to consider their representations in favour of some reduction in working hours and he undertook in particular that full inquiry would be made as to the extent to which their net hours of duty differed from their gross hours, which are 48 per week. The results of this inquiry are now under examination.

Mr. MANDER: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the introduction of the 40-hour week has been found practicable in the United States; and does he not think this a good opportunity for the Government to give a lead to employers?

Sir W. WOMERSLEY: My right hon. Friend has had a full report on how it is working in the United States.

Sir A. WILSON: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that most agricultural workers are working 60 hours a week for half the pay of these men?

CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION.

Mr. ATTLEE: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether any constitutional difficulties have arisen, and whether he has any statement to make?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have no statement to make to-day. While there does not at present exist any constitutional difficulty, the situation is of such a nature as to make it inexpedient that I should be questioned about it at this stage.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the anxiety which reports have caused in the minds of many people, he can assure the House that he will make a statement at the earliest possible time at which that statement can be made?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have all that the right hon. Gentleman says very much in mind.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Would my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that no irrevocable step will be taken before a formal statement has been made to Parliament?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add to the statement I have made at this present moment. I will consider and examine the question which my right hon. Friend has asked.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister the business for next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: Monday: Report and Third Reading of the Public Order Bill, which we hope will be concluded by about half-past nine o'clock. Afterwards we shall take the concluding stages of the Railway Freight Rebates Bill [Lords].
Tuesday: Committee and remaining stages of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. It is hoped that reasonable time will be available for the discussion of a Motion standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition relating to the Unemployment Assistance Regulations.
Wednesday: Private Members' Motions.
Thursday: Committee stage of Ways and Means Resolutions, to impose duties on imported beef and veal.
Friday: Private Members' Bills.
During the week as opportunity offers other business will be taken, including

the Unemployment Assistance (Temporary Provisions) Amendment [Money] Resolution.

Mr. ATTLEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Ways and Means Resolution on the imports of beef will be available?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope it will be printed at the week-end.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: May I ask whether that means that we shall have the opportunity for a general discussion upon the Anglo-Argentine Agreement as a whole?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is another question. I could not answer it without notice.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will it be possible to supply Members of the House with a White Paper indicating the general home, foreign and Empire implications of the proposals which are to be submitted on Thursday next?

The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will make a note of that question. I could not answer it now.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how far he proposes to go to-night in the event of the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule?

The PRIME MINISTER: We are suspending the Rule in order to obtain the Second Reading of the Railway Freight Rebates Bill and the Report and Third Reading of the Trunk Roads Bill, and we should like afterwards, if possible, to take some exempted business—the Motion with regard to the inclusion of private gardeners in the unemployment scheme and Orders 3 and 4 relating to the Instruments of Instructions to Governors of Provinces in India and to the Governor of Burma, which were debated in the House a short time ago.
Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 273; Noes, 126.

Division No. 32.]
AYES.
[3.50 p.m


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Markham, S. F.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.


Albery, Sir Irving
Entwistle, C. F.
Maxwell, S. A.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Errington, E.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Erskine Hill, A. G.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Apsley, Lord
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Everard, W. L.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Assheton, R.
Flldes, Sir H.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Fraser, Capt. Sir I.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.


Atholl, Duchess of
Furness, S. N.
Morgan, R. H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Ganzonl, Sir J.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Morrison. G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Balniel, Lord
Gledhill, G.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cir'nc'st'r)


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Munro, P.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Goldie, N. B.
Nall. Sir J.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.


Belt, Sir A. L.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Bernays, R. H.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Granville, E. L.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Blair, Sir R.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Blaker, Sir R.
Grimston, R. V.
Patrick, C. M.


Blindell, Sir J.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Peake, O.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
Peat, C. U.


Bossom, A. C.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart
Guy, J. C. M.
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Petherick, M.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Plikington, R.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hanbury, Sir C.
Plugge, L. F.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Harvey, Sir G.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Porritt. R. W.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Radford, E. A.


Bull, B. B.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Ramsbotham, H.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Ramsden, Sir E.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cartland, J. R. H.
Holmes, J. S.
Reid, Sir D. O. (Down)


Cary, R. A.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hopkinson, A.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br. W.)
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Ropner. Colonel L.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Channon, H.
Hulbert, N. J.
Rowlands, G.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hunter, T.
Runciman. Rt. Hon. W.


Chorlton. A. E. L.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Keeling, E. H.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Salmon, Sir I.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Salt, E. W.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)


Colfox, Major W. P.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lambert. Rt. Hon. G.
Sandys, E. D.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh,W.)
Latham, Sir P.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Leckie, J. A.
Scott, Lord William


Craddock, Sir R. H.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Cranborne, Viscount
Lees-Jones, J.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Crooke, J. S.
Levy, T.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Cross, R. H.
Lewis, O.
Smithers, Sir W.


Crossley, A. C.
Liddall, W. S.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Davison, Sir W. H.
Lloyd, G. W.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


De Chair, S. S.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


De la Bère, R.
Loftus, P. C.
Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Spens, W. P.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Doland, G. F.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)


Donner, P. W.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Storey, S.


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Srauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
MacDonald Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
MacDonald Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Duggan, H. J.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Dunne, P. R. R.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Sutcliffe, H.


Eckersley, P. T.
McKie, J. H.
Tate, Mavis C.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Ellis, Sir G.
Magnay, T.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Elliston, G. S.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.



Elmley, Viscount
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Emery, J. F.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Touche, G. C.




Train, Sir J.






Tree, A. R. L. F.
Warrender, Sir V.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
Waterhouse, Captain C.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Turton, R. H.
Wells, S. R.
Wood, Hon. Sir Kingsley


Wakefield, W. W.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Wright. Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)



Ward, Irene (Wallsend)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Sir George Penny and Lieut-Colonel




Sir A. Lambert Ward.




NOES


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Potts, J.


Adams, D. (Conceit)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Price, M. P.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Pritt, D. N.


Adamson, W. M.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Ridley, G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hardie, G. D.
Riley, B.


Banfield, J. W.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Ritson, J.


Barr, J.
Heyday, A.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Batey, J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Bellenger, F.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Rowson, G.


Benson, G.
Hollins, A.
Salter, Dr. A.


Bevan. A.
Jagger, J.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Sexton. T. M.


Brooke, W.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Silverman, S. S.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S, Ayrshire)
John, W.
Simpson, F. B.


Burke, W. A.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Cassells, T.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Charleton, H C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Chater, D.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Sorensen, R, W.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Kirby, B. V.
Stephen, C.


Cove, W. G.
Kirkwood, D.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Daggar, G.
Lathan, G.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Dalton, H.
Lawson, J. J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leonard, W.
Thorne, W.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Logan, D. G.
Thurtle, E.


Day, H.
Lunn, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Dobble, W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Vlant, S. P.


Dunn, E. (Rather Valley)
McEntee, V. La T.
Walker, J.


Ede, J. C.
McGhee, H. G.
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Maclean, N.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Westwood, J.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Mander, G. le M.
White, H. Graham


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Marshall, F.
Whiteley, W.


Foot, D. M.
Maxton, J.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Frankel, D.
Messer, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gardner, B. W.
Montague, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Paling, W.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Gibbins, J.
Parker, J.



Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Mathers and Mr. Groves.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Munitions to Spain) Bill, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — RAILWAY FREIGHT REBATES BILL

[Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

4.2 p.m.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The necessity for this Bill arises, as will he vividly in the recollection of the House, from a judgment given in another place acting in its judicial capacity. It was held that the valuation of the Southern Railway Company for local rates should have been £1,077,000, or 40 per cent. less than the £1,800,000 on which this company has been paying since April, 1931. Following upon this decision the rating authorities and the railway companies, in preference to continuing litigation, come together and voluntarily agreed that the liabilities of the railway companies in respect of rates should be reduced both retrospectively and prospectively. As three-quarters of the assessments of the railway companies to rates are, under the Local Government Act of 1929, payable into a Rebates Fund, and thence disbursed in relief of the carriage charges on selected traffics, the net results of the judgment and the agreements are that the fund is in debt to the railway companies for £9,750,000, and that its revenue for the present quinquennium will be curtailed.
No Government moneys are involved, but in the general interests of industry His Majesty's Government have thought it right to lend assistance in a settlement which will preserve the scheme in its essential features, and this Bill is the outcome. The first fact to notice is that the railway companies are entitled to a refund of their overpayments. The second fact to notice is that the traders have received, by way of rebates, sums in excess of those now shown to be their entitlement. There is no provision under which they could be called upon to make them good, and it is not proposed that they should be invited to do so. The third fact is that the fund, indebted in respect of the past, and limited to a smaller income in the future, would, in the absence of proposals, be bankrupt and the rebates would be at an end.
Here in this Bill are the means of resolving this problem. Everyone concerned must plainly make some sacrifice as an alternative to the suspension of the scheme. The railway companies have agreed to refrain from claiming interest in respect of the past on the £9,750,000 which they are owed. The Railway Clearing House, which administers the scheme, is to borrow on the security of the fund the amount required to discharge the fund's liability to the railway companies. There is in hand an accumulated balance of £1,000,000, so that stock will be issued to produce £8,750,000. As to the future annual income of the fund, it is estimated that this will be, on the new basis, £2,300,000 instead of the £4,000,000 which it has been receiving owing to the railway companies paying too much.
The industries which benefit from rebates have been consulted, and coal and agriculture have agreed that the amount available should be distributed in the following ways: After payment of interest and sinking fund, four-fifths, or £1,250,000, of the remainder shall go to export coal; one-fifth, say £300,000, shall go to milk and livestock. This reapportionment involves an Amendment of the 11th Schedule to the Local Government Act which contained the original allocation. Under it, coal received seven-tenths, iron ores and pit props one-tenth, and agriculture one-fifth of the whole. The new distribution should allow not less than 5½d. a ton to be devoted to coal for export, and milk and livestock to obtain not much less than they have hitherto received. The remaining selected traffics will temporarily forgo their claims, and, fully understanding the altered circumstances, they have not pressed objection.
This super-concentration is to be in force for seven years and can be extended, if the situation justifies it, until 1952. That is the scheme. Until I had notice of the Amendment which appeared on the Order Paper this morning the Government had thought that the merits of this Measure were generally recognised as being the best obtainable in the difficulty which had arisen; but we are now told that while legislation is necessary this legislation has two defects. Firstly, it is said that it adds to the burdens of important sections of industry.


whereas, on the contrary, it relieves important sections of industry of burdens which, in the absence of the Bill, they would be called upon to bear. Secondly, it is alleged that we have ignored the difficulties of local authorities. The fact is, however, that the local authorities have themselves come to terms with the railway companies, and this Bill deals with the reactions on the Rebates Fund of the agreements which the local authorities have reached.
I shall, of course, await with interest and deal in reply with any arguments that may be advanced in explanation of the Amendment. In the meantime the House will, I think, be under the impression that the Amendment for rejection is based, partly on a false assumption as to what the Bill contains, and partly on an irrelevant reference to a subject outside its ambit. I now commend the proposals to the House as the best practical method of preserving for the benefit of those basic industries most in need a system of rebates which would otherwise collapse.

Mr. SPEAKER: I must point out that the Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt), although not out of order, comes very near the line of being out of order and deals with something that is really outside the Bill altogether. It may be regarded as a sufficient reason for voting against the Second Reading that something different is not done by the Bill, but that particular argument cannot be enlarged upon or gone into in detail.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. PRITT: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
whilst this House recognises the necessity for legislation following upon a recent decision regarding the assessment of railway hereditaments for rating purposes, it cannot assent to the Second Reading of a Bill which adds to the burdens upon important sections of industry and, by ignoring the difficulties created for the local authorities, fails to deal with the problem as a whole.
You will call me to order, Mr. Speaker, if I transgress the rule in the course of putting the arguments on this Amendment. This is, of course, a very technical piece of legislation. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport has departed from the rule which was beginning

to grow up in the House, that no Minister should ever explain a Bill on Second Reading, and he has made clear to the House what the Bill deals with. If I say a few words about the way the problem has arisen, as I understand it, I may show either that I am indeed in orde or make it definitely clear that I am not. As I understand the problem it arose in this way: the railway companies and railway rates, like nearly everything under the existing system, of course have to be patched and tinkered with and pushed, and very often, though not in the case of the railways, helped by subsidies in order to keep going in some sort of fashion.
Some control of railways is vital for the industries whose goods they carry. The long dreary history of the impossibility of either understanding or administering the old principles of rating, 350 years old roughly, applying to complicated things like public utilities, came in 1930 to a head and legislation was passed in relation to the railway companies—legislation which, in conjunction with de-rating, tended to have roughly this effect: the substantial moneys which railway companies got in relief of their rates under the de-rating legislation were to be devoted wholly, I think it is fair to say, to relieving certain industries, and that relief was to be given by securing that the rates charged on certain commodities should be cut from their normal and existing level, with very substantial reductions in some cases, so that those industries got the benefit of the relief which, though apparently given to the railway companies, was really given to the railway companies to pass on under the de-rating legislation. So that in effect the national Exchequer in its de-rating contribution was in a complicated fashion paying for the carriage of the particular commodities involved.
It would be out of order to comment in any way on the merits or demerits of that system. The trouble has arisen only in the precise operation of the system. It is obvious that such a matter must be provided with machinery for making a rough estimate in fixing rates to secure that what the railway companies give up will be about the same thing as the benefit that de-rating brings. There must be provisions for securing in a practical fashion that that, shall go on.
It took a good many years to reassess the railways under the new and supposedly simpler and better system of rating, and meanwhile the railway companies paid on account, or as an estimate, very large sums in rates. I think it is fair to assume, and I ask for it to be assumed, that everybody in making those calculations was looking to the assessment—well, not assessment but to the provision or estimate—of the sums of money to be paid by the railway being made on some 1913 basis.
Everybody expected that that estimate would be about right, so that when the railway assessments ultimately came to be actually made it would be found that while there would be, naturally, adjustments to be made, they would not be very serious. For example, coal would get this 8d., a figure which obviously would vary from time to time, and it was assumed that they could get on with that and make their contracts and arrangements in relation to that figure. Everybody thought that the railways, receiving on the one hand these rate rebates and giving rebates in their carrying rates, would be enabled to carry on their business without real loss or benefit to themselves, except in the most indirect manner, and that they would pay their wages and dividends and so forth on that footing.
But the people who were reckoning on the arrangement being carried on in that way failed to take into account two things. One was the imperfections of the English language, and the other was the ingenuity of lawyers. It is always customary, certainly in the courts and, I am afraid, occasionally in this House, to abuse the draftsmen of statutes. They are one of the few classes in the community whom I have never abused, and I am glad to be able to say that in this case it is not their fault; and now that I am a humble Member of this House I am glad to be able to say that it is not the fault of the House. As I was employed—more profitably in one sense, and, I hope, less profitably in another—in the litigation involved I learned that the actual Sections of the Statute which had caused all the trouble had been prepared by consent by the parties, in order that neither lawyers nor Parliament should destroy their meaning and desires and intentions. It looks almost as if

they were worse off without lawyers than with them. At any rate, the result at the end of it is that it is suddenly found that most of the railway companies in this country are worth absolutely nothing at all, that nobody would give anything at all for them. They would give £1,000,000 for the Southern Railway Company, but for the others they would give nothing at all; an estimate of value which I hope will be borne in mind when the nationalisation of railways comes forward; but that point, of course, is not now relevant. The practical result is that the railway companies get an undeserved gift of a very large sum of money.
Trying to keep one's mind clear in the complexities of the matter, I think it is right to say that the railway companies got a real gift, something which they do not have to give away again to anybody else, because the rates which have been charged in the past on the various consignments of milk, coal, manure or whatever it may be have been paid for good and all and nobody gets any money back in respect of them. That being discovered, and the money having to be paid back, the proper way to deal with this matter, in my submission to the House, is to try to do three things. The first is to say to the railway companies "In this country we do not legislate retrospectively, except in the rarest possible cases and therefore we cannot deprive you of your windfall" —if that is a correct description of something which comes unexpectedly after many words have been spoken by lawyers— "because it has accrued to you and we cannot take it away, but we must take care that you do not have any more of it in the future. You cannot go on walking round the country pretending that because your railways are worthless you ought to pay no rates at all while everybody else pays rates."
The second thing that ought to be done is to say as regards this fund into which the railway companies have been paying money for the relief of rates "We quite see the immense difficulties of this fund being suddenly called upon to refund a large sum of money to the railway companies, and the obvious and proper course is to do what we should do in the case of anybody else who found himself in unexpected financial difficulties, either lend him money or arrange that he should borrow some." So far as I can


see, this Bill is doing that part of the work in what appears to be a business like fashion. It is arranging that the fund may borrow on the security of its own income in order to pay its unexpected and undeserved debts. The third thing that ought to be done, though the Bill neglects this entirely, is to say to the rating authorities "You find yourselves confronted with a sudden and undeserved debt which you have got to pay. You must be allowed either to pay by instalments or to borrow money in order to pay."
The right hon. Gentleman suggests that it is untrue to say that the local authorities are being ignored, because they have come to terms, but I think that is a very imperfect way of describing the position. The local authorities saw themselves confronted with an immense complexity of possible litigation though it is true, I believe, that there are only two courts concerned. I think they go straight before the Railway and Canal Commission for the first possible litigation and then straight to the House of Lords for the second. With the prospect of many years, and tens of thousands of pounds, spent in fighting the other three main companies, the local authorities, after the Southern Railway case had been to the House of Lords, succeeded in avoiding all that by agreeing with the three companies to fix their assessments on the basis of the unexpected—if that is not an improper way of describing it —decision of another place in its judicial capacity. In no sense have the local authorities come to terms, except in the sense that they have said, "We agree with you that we owe you this much and that you owe us for rates in the future" —in one case I think nothing, and in the other case, apparently, a small sum of money for rates in the future.
Regarding the point made by the Minister, in answer to the Amendment, that so far from adding to the burdens of important sections of industry the Bill relieves important sections of industry, again I submit that is a very imperfect way of stating the position. As a result of there being very much less money coming into the pool in the future, plus the result of the pool having unexpectedly to pay out very large debts, there is less money to relieve industries and trades. To put it practically, they are

failing to relieve the industries, because one industry which used to get something gets nothing—I should say one commodity rather than industry. One commodity gets nothing, and two others that used to get something get less than the something they used to get. I think it is a fair illustration to say that coal has dropped from a rough 8d. to a rough 5d., and that nothing is done to put that right for the future. The only sense in which these industries are relieved is the sense in which a man who goes bankrupt with large debts and nothing to look to except an unattachable income in the future is allowed, by a reasonable arrangement, to borrow on the security of his future income in order to pay his debts. I agree that that method of frittering away one's property is much less disagreeable than being sued at once and having to find the money somehow and somewhere at a ruinous loss; in that sense only is industry relieved; but the fact remains that nothing is attempted by way of putting this right, by which I mean amending the rating law so that for the future it shall be in its substantial results exactly what most people thought it was before this litigation was brought to a head in another place.
That would be a proper way of dealing with the problem as a whole. The other thing that it is proper to do to deal with the problem as a whole is really brought about by that. If you do that you can, in the future, give to the industries which are thought to deserve this particular form of relief what you thought you were going to give to them in the past, and if you also relegislate in that fashion you can put the local authorities in a position in future to be as well off as they ought to be in the matter of collecting rates from the people who are using these properties. If you put them in a position to draw a proper rate revenue from that source in the future, you can relieve them at present in a manner not dissimilar from that in which you are seeking to relieve the—call it the Railway Clearing House if you like—by saying, "As you unexpectedly have to pay a debt which has arisen out of the ground, as debts sometimes do, and as it is obviously against the ordinary principles of legislation to wipe out the debt, and so you must pay, and as it would be a great hardship to


make you pay at once, we will let you borrow money on the security of future rates in order to pay it at once; or at any rate provide some method of spreading payment over a period of years, instead of your having to meet the charge suddenly by levying what might be substantially increased rates."
I do not suggest the argument which is put forward when dealing with rates that you are not rating the same body of ratepayers and that you are being unfair. I have always regarded that as one of the imperfections that have to be borne with under the ordinary form of legislation. You cannot go on legislating for somebody who was a ratepayer in, say, 1930, and I do not seek to enter into any complication of that kind; but I put it to the House that this is a very partial way of dealing with a problem which is one problem in the sense that if it afflicts three or four groups of people it afflicts them all from one common source, there really is three or four sets of problems arising from one evil which ought to have been dealt with as a whole.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: I have very carefully perused this short Bill, and I consider that the Government have very usefully solved a most difficult matter, except in one particular, and that is in the allocation of the freight rebate to agriculture. Under this Bill it is proposed to allow export coal 80 per cent. and agriculture will then get 20 percent. Previously when there was £4,000,000 available instead of £2,300,000, iron and steel, together with export coal, received 70 per cent., and there was 10 per cent. allotted to pit props and other items in that list, and agriculture received 20 percent. I thoroughly agree that, so far as export coal is concerned, it is advisable to give as much assistance as possible in order that they should be helped to the greatest extent to meet the subsidised exportation of coal by other countries to neutral markets, and seeing that to-day it happens that the iron and steel industry is much better off than in 1931—if that were not the case, sitting as I do for a Sheffield constituency, I should certainly be appealing for some of this rebate to be given to iron and steel or rather to coal delivered to that industry—I think we must

admit that the amount of £2,300,000 that will be available in future should be given to the more distressed or unhappy industries.
So far as agriculture is concerned, I think there is little doubt that the House realises only too well how some sections of agriculture are depressed at the moment, and under the scheme as it has come down from the other place it is suggested that the whole of the allocation to agriculture should be divided between milk and livestock. Foodstuffs, fertilisers, potatoes, hay, grain, and other products of arable land will get nothing and you have what I consider a very unfortunate set of circumstances, namely, grass land getting help at the expense of arable land. The Minister, in his opening speech, told us that the agricultural industry had been consulted. I believe I am right in saying that the Ministry obtained from the National Farmers Union a resolution on this matter, but I am told that that resolution was passed by a very narrow majority, I believe by one or two votes, and that a very strong opinion in agricultural circles still exists that the rebate allocated should be distributed over the whole range of products in the old list. I therefore ask the Minister, before this Bill goes to the Committee stage, that he should again consult not only the National Farmers' Union, but also other agricultural authorities, and make sure that we are right in allocating the whole of this agricultural amount to milk and livestock.
May I suggest also that there is a way in which we can obtain a larger amount of money for the agricultural industry, if we make one change in the proposals put forward by this Bill? I understand that the debt, which amounts to £8,750,000, is to be funded by issuing a loan and that the money is to be paid back to the railway companies over a period of 16 years. May I ask why 16 years? Is there any good reason why this term should not be extended to such a number of years as would bring in a further £400,000 for distribution? I calculate that that would mean extending the period from 16 years to approximately 30 years, and you would then be able to distribute the 80 per cent of coal as before, and they would obtain a somewhat larger amount—I estimate about £130,000—which would certainly


be very acceptable to the export coal, increasing their 5½. by quite a useful fraction, and instead of approximately £300,000 being available for agriculture, the figure would be increased to £570,000 approximately. You would then be able without difficulty to cover the whole range of the agricultural industry.
I quite agree that under the present circumstances the railway companies cannot be asked to shoulder any part of the burden, and, of course, they have a right to be paid back the amount of the debt, but I submit to the House and the Minister that it would not only be in the interests of the community as a whole, but also in the interests of the railway companies themselves, that they should wait a little longer for the repayment of that debt. There is little doubt that among the agricultural traffics that will in future have to pay higher freights a great many will be taken off the rails and put on to the roads, particularly foodstuffs, fertilisers, and potatoes. Therefore, it may quite well be that the railway companies would considerably help themselves if they gave the fund a little longer to pay off the debt. Surely it is worth while, first of all, to obtain a greater measure of harmony among the agricultural community by not differentiating between the arable farmer and the grass-land farmer, and certainly it must be of particular interest to the Minister that we should do something in connection with this Bill to stem the tide of heavy traffic coming on to the roads. If this matter is very carefully examined, I believe that by extending the period during which this debt may be paid back to the railway companies, these particular points would be met.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. JAMES GRIFFITHS: The right hon. Gentleman, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, gave one the impression that he was here in the capacity of a messenger from the Government bringing good gifts. As a matter of fact, this Bill is a consequence of what has taken place in the law courts. I know that when an action is taken in the courts it is not possible there to discuss what was the intention of Parliament in bringing forward particular legislation. The judges have to decide on the words of the Statute, but we are entitled to discuss the intentions of Parliament and whether

this new Measure carries out what was the original intention of Parliament. It is only in that way that this Bill can be rightly adjusted. Parliament originally thought fit that industry in this country ought to be relieved in some substantial measure of the burden of rates, and Parliament therefore decided that those who were producing commodities of various kinds and industrial owners should be relieved of 75 per cent of the burden of their rates.
When the Measure went through the House, it was felt that there were certain industries—industries which were protected, whose market was an entirely home market, which had very large powers conferred upon them by Statute, and which were enabled by those powers to meet all their existing liabilities and to put any increased liabilities on to the consumers—which ought not to be unduly favoured by this legislation. One of those was the railway industry, and by the Railway Act of 1921 that industry has power to ask for increased charges to meet whatever liabilities may be imposed upon them by increased wages or otherwise, and therefore it was felt that the railway industry ought not to keep this advantage, and that the great relief that would otherwise be granted to them by de-rating ought not to be kept by the railways, but that they ought to form a fund by which other industries in greater need, which had to meet greater adversity, and which had to fight for their existence, would be able to get it.
That was the intention of Parliament. The intention was perfectly clear, that the rate relief which otherwise would go to the railways should be utilised as a fund to assist other industries, amongst which I want particularly to refer to the coal export trade. That has gone on for several years. Then the railway companies took an action in the courts, and the judges made a decision by which it was declared that the railway companies ought not to have been called upon to pay rates. Therefore, there is this new sum of debt of about £9,000,000 now owing to the companies, and the right hon. Gentleman brings forward a Bill in order to meet that situation. But he is only meeting it, not to carry out the intention in the original Act, but only partially to carry out that intention, and he leaves some of these industries in a very much worse plight.
This problem affects the two worst areas in this country, the two areas, Durham and South Wales, in which, by the pure accident of geography, because their pits happened to be near the ports, and because the export trade was profitable, it was easier and cheaper to convey coal from the pits to the ports in Durham and South Wales than it was in Yorkshire, in Nottingham, or in Derby. In that way, purely by that accident, Durham and South Wales were induced —every encouragement was given, and it was deemed to be in the national interest—to concentrate upon this export market. Since the end of the War and the Treaty of Versailles, since the world has gone mad and reverted to this absurd, suicidal, economic nationalism, which is torturing the world and menacing peace, and which is at the root of the political difficulties of the world, since that time the export trade of this country has had to meet a terrible situation.
In South Wales ever since the end of the War, and particularly since 1920, our export trade has been declining year after year, and is still declining. The figures are truly appalling. In the last four years, the export trade of South Wales has declined by 3,000,000 tons. The figures for 1936, when issued, will show that the export trade of South Wales is back where it was 40 years ago, when we began fighting for the export market. Why? Not because of the quality of the coal or because of South Wales prices. South Wales miners are working for lower wages than for nearly half a century, and coal is being produced at a lower figure than for 30 years past. The output per man is increasing, and the cost per ton is going down. In spite of all the improvements, and of all the suffering and poverty which have been entailed by those low wages in the coalfield, the export trade is going down. Why? Because we have to meet from Germany a competition which is subsidised not by the poverty and low wages of the miners, but by the whole nation.
That position existed long before the rise of Herr Hitler. Germany says: "This is a trade which is essential to the safety of the nation and upon which the prosperity of the nation depends. If we are to maintain ourselves as a nation we must be able to sell our products

abroad." Therefore it is held to be in the national interest to subsidise the export trade. The amount of levy collected upon every ton of coal in Germany is equal to 7s. per ton. That is pooled in the coalfields in Germany, and means anything from 10s. to 15s. by way of subsidy upon every ton of coal exported. South Wales coal has to compete with that, and so has Durham coal. Every ton of coal exported from this country has to compete with that. We have also to meet competition from Poland and the Silesian coalfields. The coal is brought to the new port of Gdynia, which was made as a result of the policy of this country when the new State of Poland was created as a buffer against the menace of Bolshevism in Russia. From Silesia to Gdynia, 360 miles, the coal is conveyed at a freight rate which is less than the freight rate for 30 miles in this country. In addition to that are other subsidies. It is true that there has been some improvement in the last 18 months, by the Anglo-Polish agreement, but still there is that competition, at a time when South Wales is fighing for its life, and when it is the only coal district in this country which is suffering loss.
South Wales is the district where miners are being worse paid and unemployment is most rife and where, week by week, pits are closing down and 10,000 or 18,000 men are being thrown out of work. Figures show that the decline of the South Wales coalfield is almost entirely explained by the decline in the export trade. In the inland markets, it has more than held its own. South Wales is now not only holding its own, but it has won its way to new markets, in the inland trade of this country. Its losses are almost entirely due to its failure to compete with subsidised competition in other countries in Europe. Now, because some lawyers have discovered technical flaws to defeat the real intention of Parliament, we have the situation which confronts us, and in which the Minister says, "All we can do is to bring forward this Bill." The Bill means that South Wales, instead of getting as relief and assistance 8d. per ton, in future will get 5½d. per ton. We shall lose 2½d. per ton, on the last year's figure of 20,000,000 tons of export coal. We shall lose over £2,000,000 per annum. In this House that sum may seem quite small, but it may mean life or death to the South Wales coalfield.
The loss of £2,000,000 will completely upset the ascertainments in South Wales and will make them far worse than they are now. It will make it impossible for miners in South Wales to get any increase in wages. In the last wages increase they received only 2½d. per day, or 4d. per day at the maximum, whereas miners in other coalfields received 1s. per day. Since that time, South Wales miners have had no increase, while other miners have had increases. The coal of South Wales is carrying all those burdens, and now this new burden is being added to it, because someone has discovered a flaw in the law. They are being deprived of £2,000,000. I put it to the Minister that the Bill is not the best thing which could be done, and that the Government have a responsibility towards those export districts, which have contributed so richly to the maintenance of the trade of this country. The export of coal has made it possible for us to keep a balanced economy in this country. Coal going out has enabled us to bring back foodstuffs for our people, at prices within their reach.
I urge upon the Minister that this new blow should not be inflicted upon the distressed areas. Certain words were used the other day which have crystallized the position of those areas: "Something must be done." Instead of something being done to help them, a further blow is to fall upon the industry. Local authorities are also carrying their burdens and are going to be very badly hit. We have tabled the Amendment in order to express our dissatisfaction, and to enable us to put our point of view to the Government. We wish to express our view that the Government are under a moral obligation to place those industries in the same position, without being a fraction of a farthing worse off than when Parliament passed the original legislation. I hope that the Minister will agree that some other more adequate steps should be taken than those indicated in the Bill, so that the industries which are so badly hit will not be worse hit, as by this legislation.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: I believe that the whole House has now been put into possession of what the Bill proposes to do, and I need not say anything further

on that point. I would point out, however, how ironic it is that the House should be guided in its legislative decisions by the courts of law. What we are doing is not implementing a previous intention of Parliament, but a decision of the law courts. The law courts have decided that the original intention of Parliament is to be upset by reducing the total hereditament, or the rate of hereditament, to the railway company. As a consequence of that deduction, there is a smaller revenue into the pool out of which railway rebates are paid in the case of certain commodities. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, it is highly regrettable that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to reconstruct the position which it was thought existed there.
This is a retrogressive piece of legislation. It was intended that the pool out of which the rebates should be made should be of a certain order or quantity. As a consequence of the decision of the other place, that amount has been reduced, and so it meant having to put up with a smaller revenue. I would like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman, in reinforcement of what my hon. Friend has already said, that this is a particularly serious matter for the South Wales coal export trade. Only a short time ago, hon. Members opposite, and the hon. Member who was predecessor of the existing Secretary for Mines, brought before the House a Bill which ultimately became an Act, reducing the Welfare Fund from one penny to one halfpenny, on the ground that the additional halfpenny involved was a grievous burden upon the industry. Although it was shown that the halfpenny represented a sum of £450 or £500 a year, which was being used in order to alleviate the distress in the distressed areas and to increase the amenities of the miners in those areas, which, we have been told, is the peculiar concern of the Government just now, it was said that the plight of the industry was so serious that the money had to be taken from the miners and from their homes, as well as from the welfare facilities, in order to relieve the industry.
Now we have a proposal which fails to provide the industry with 2½d. per ton of railway rebate which it has been in the habit of enjoying. That is the true position. It is changing the position of the export coal trade for the worse, to


the extent of 2½d. per ton. It is obvious that if the condition of the coal trade has become seriously worsened in the last few years, an additional burden of 2½d. per ton is bound to make the position still worse. We are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman why the Bill has been brought before the House without consideration having been given to that aspect of the matter. He may tell me that consideration has been given to it; in that case, perhaps he will explain how they can justify neglect of that sort, in view of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he and the Government regarded the position as so serious that they proposed to bring in new legislation to deal with it.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to

1. Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Munitions to Spain) Act, 1936.

Orders of the Day — RAILWAY FREIGHT REBATES BILL [Lords]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

5.10 p.m.

Mr. BEVAN: I was making the point, when we were interrupted, that we should like the Parliamentary Secretary to say whether the Government have given consideration to the effect of the provisions of this Bill on the Welsh and Durham export coal trade. I find it difficult to believe that they have given consideration to it, because, if they have, the fact that they have brought in the Bill is a complete violation of the assurance which has been given by them to the House on more than one occasion recently, that the position of the distressed areas is the peculiar preoccupation of the Government at the present time. It may be that they have in mind some plan in substitution for the relief which this Bill fails to provide for the export coal trade, and, if that be so,

perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman would indicate their nature when he comes to speak. On the other hand, the truth probably is that this Bill has been would indicate their nature when he comes to speak. On the other hand, truth probably is that this Bill has been Departmental Measure, and that no consideration what so ever has been given to the distressed areas aspect of it. That simply italicises the complaint which we have made from time to time, and which has been emphasised in the report of the Commissioner for the distressed areas, that there is no co-ordination of Government activity in this matter at all. Measure after Measure is brought before the House having a direct bearing upon the problem of the distressed areas, and there is no central clearing-house for the consideration of those Measures.
Here we have a House which is almost empty, gravely discussing taking away—or, to speak, perhaps, more correctly, failing to protect—railway rebates of 2½a ton, despite the fact that, as is now admitted everywhere, the very places in Britain where unemployment is continuously on the increase are South Wales and some parts of Durham. I hope we shall have a reply on that matter before the end of the day. It is very reasonable, we contend, that the railways as a whole should carry this burden, although it may, of course, be said by some defenders of the railways that they also have their difficulties, and I admit that they have their difficulties. The railways have been very hard hit in the last few years, in the same way as the coal trade has been, by the rise of substitute forms of transport like heavy road transport, and they would perhaps find difficulty in transferring the additional cost to the freightages of the railway system generally. But in our submission to the House a way ought to be found out of that difficulty other than by burdening a community which is already suffering so desperately under present conditions. A much more scientific and sensible policy on the part of the Government would have been to have found some way out of the difficulty raised by the recent decision other than the way they have chosen, which is, I would emphasise at the cost of being laboured in the matter, adding to the burdens of an area which is already suffering grievously as is the export coal trade of Great Britain.
If we were considering a Bill to deal specifically with the distressed areas, we should have those benches very crowded, because hon. Members will regard the distressed areas problem as one in isolation; they will look upon the problem in a sort of romantic penumbra, as if it is a sort of special issue raising sentimental and human considerations, when as a matter of fact the distressed areas problem is a very prosaic economic problem, which can be solved only by attacking it from a number of different angles at once. Therefore it seems to me that no piece of legislation ought to be brought before the House until it has been reviewed to discover what special bearing it has on that problem. Here we have, as we had in the case of the Welfare Act, the Unemployment Regulations and other Measures of that description, like the Trunk Roads Bill, a Measure which ought to be considered, not only from the point of view of the general principles of the Bill itself, but from the point of view of its bearing upon this particular problem, which is now admitted to be the most obdurate of the problems with which the country is faced.
My hon. Friends and I would be perfectly entitled to hold the House up for many hours in forcing the Government to give some explanation why they have taken the line that they have taken over this problem. It is not enough to say that there have been consultations with other people outside the House. I should like to know whether there has been any consultation with the Commissioner for the Special Areas. What has he said about it? What effect will it have on unemployment in South Wales? In what way is industry going to be protected from the additional burden? It is time we had a Government which would form some sort of unitary conception of policy and not bring isolated Measures before the House without any political strategy at the back of them. We are always having to consider these problems in isolation and not against the background of a general strategy.
There is one other criticism that I should like to make of a more general character. Every time a difficulty arises now where, owing to an expected set of circumstances, a sudden burden is placed upon a fund of any kind the immediate

expedient is to raise a loan. We had it over the Irish annuities, the Tithes Bill, and the shipping subsidy, and we now have it over the railway rebates. Every single financial difficulty into which the Government gets is made into an excuse for increasing the demands of the rentier and on the revenues of the country. It is suggested that this is a good expedient and a piece of skilful financial engineering in order to give the railways the amount of money that they are entitled to and to ease the burden of the accumulated deficit on local authorities and on industry, as it will be very onerous if they have to meet the whole of the arrears at once. It is represented to us to be a first-class piece of engineering. How is it accomplished? By adding a fourth burden. Interest will have to be paid for 16 years to the moneylender. I understand that they are going to issue stock to the value of £8,000,000 against a liquid asset of £1,000,000 and against the revenues of the fund from now on, and that £8,500,000 roughly will be spread over 16 years. An hon. Member has put up a special plea for rebates on agricultural produce. That is a typical Tory remedy. He says, "Why not carry the burden of the moneylender on your back for more than 16 years—for 20 or 30?"

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: From my point of view it would certainly not be a Tory measure to take the rentier's load over a long period of years but merely a businesslike suggestion to deal with the difficulty which we have at present, and which might influence a greater amount of traffic to the railway companies during the period that the money is being paid back.

Mr. BEVAN: The hon. Member has admitted what I said more euphemistically. All he has done is to describe it as a business measure. What he suggested was this: Here is a debt of £8,500,000 which has suddenly accumulated. If you did not try to pay it all back in 16 years you would be able to give more immediate relief to certain products at the moment. The answer to that is that you would give a larger relief over a longer period of time and, if you did not have to meet it in that way at the end of 16 years, you could restore the higher rebate, whereas, if you kept it longer than 16 years you would still have to keep the rebate below the maximum.

Mr. L. SMITH: Does the hon. Member realise that his suggestion now, as against mine, is taking away £100,000 or £200,000, which would be quite useful to the coal industry and, therefore, very desirable in the interests of his constituents?

Mr. BEVAN: I understand that the structure of the Bill is that this £8,500,000 should be borrowed by stock issued to that value and that it should be serviced by the £1,000,000 which is there now and by the revenues of the fund. That means that the rebates now given under the proposals of the Government are less than they would be if the money were borrowed over a longer period, and everyone agrees that it is perfectly simple as far as it goes. I and, I believe, many of my hon. Friends are against this attempt to get out of an immediate difficulty by borrowing money for this special purpose, because you call upon these funds to carry a burden that they ought not to be asked to bear. The Government has done this on a lot of Measures in the last few years. We not only now have to give an additional revenue to the railways and tithe to the Church. We also have to give to the moneylender, who has been called in to assist us in getting out of the difficulty. So that actually what you have done by this proposal is to add to your permanent burden by relieving some of your immediate burdens. That is a proposal to which we are in principle opposed. It could have been met in a different way entirely. It is obvious that, if the railways are to get this money which has now accumulated in their favour by a legal decision, it cannot be met by the railway companies or the preferred industries finding the whole of the money at once. That would be the greatest injustice, and they ought not to be called upon to bear it. Some other way ought to be discovered of meeting this debt. The Government meet it at the expense of the coal trade and agriculture and at the expense of calling in the perfectly unnecessary moneylender.
We cannot, as things are, prevent the moneylender from being called in unless you put the whole of it on the next Budget. I would put the whole of it on the next Budget. I see no harm at all in meeting a debt of this kind by one call on the Budget. I am only expressing my own view but I believe it is a

rake's progress to do this. You ought to place the whole burden on the revenues of the State when the alternative is to put an increased burden, or fail to give the expected relief to industries which are at the moment being forced out of existence because of competition from other countries. Surely the argument for it is overwhelming. Every bushel of wheat and every ton of raw material that comes into Great Britain is rendered cheaper by the cargoes of coal carried from Durham and South Wales. If the ships that bring in our imports went away from our ports empty, they would all have to carry double freightages. It is as a consequence of the coal that leaves our ports that our imports of all kinds are cheapened, and they are cheapened for the country as a whole. They are not only cheapened for the industries that receive them but for the whole of the consumers of Great Britain. It is, therefore, a reasonable proposition that, if by a fortuitous set of circumstances a debt has accumulated, it ought to be met in such a way that it spreads the burden all over Great Britain and is not carried by a particular part of industry, and that the most distressed. It, therefore, seems to me that, if you are going to deal with the matter in a way that meets all objections, you ought to carry it at the moment on the Budget. If you object to that, why not carry it on the National Debt?
It has been admitted that agriculture and coal are in such a parlous condition that they are deserving of exceptional treatment. It is admitted that they are in an even more parlous condition now than they were at the time they were intended to be relieved. It, therefore, seems to me to be a reasonable proposition and, if that is so, the form of subsidy that they were receiving should be continued and, indeed, we claim should be increased. How can you provide a subsidy in the national interest except by the means by which it is nationally recruited? You force the railways, which are already in difficulties, to provide a subsidy on the export of coal. That is the proposal now before us. You force the local authorities in the distressed areas to provide a subsidy and, because of the decision in the courts you force them to meet a heavier burden. If the principle of your proposal that these industries ought to be helped in this way


is to be retained, then, as it is a national concern that they should be helped, the burden should be spread in a national manner.
I suggest in all seriousness to the right hon. Gentleman—I know that he cannot accept my suggestion without withdrawing the Bill—that if the legislation of the Government had been brought in after a thorough and microscopic review of the consequences of the legislation, this Bill would not have been the Measure we would have had to consider to-day. Where industry is prosperous and where the fund has been recruited from a growing industry there is some case for raising a sum of money and servicing its borrowing out of the revenues of the industry, but where in the opposite way the debt has been accumulated on the part of distressed and burdened industries like railways, coal and agriculture, it is a monstrous distortion of public policy that they should be compelled to borrow money and service that borrowing out of what is to be deflated revenues. I have very great pleasure in associating myself with the Amendment asking for the rejection of the Bill on many of the grounds which I have indicated and on some of the grounds that are not mentioned at all in the Amendment, and I hope that the House will reject the Bill.

5.32 p.m.

Captain RAMSAY: No one who has anything to do with a mining area in this country can fail to find much sympathy with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan). We cannot but feel that the mining industry is not at the moment in a position to be able to bear any additional strain upon its export trade. When, however, the hon. Member embarks upon the subject of finance, I cannot agree with him, and I do not think that it is a truism to say that, if you extend the services of a loan over a period of years, you are necessarily increasing the burden. That depends entirely upon the terms of the extension, and if it were not so, loans would not extend over such a very long term of years. In fact, the shorter the period of the loan usually the higher the interest and it can be worked out at a perfectly reasonable figure.

Mr. BEVAN: It is true that at the moment the burden would be lessened, but I am sure that the hon. and gallant

Gentleman would agree that the total amount of interest that would be paid in the end would be far greater than if a loan was borrowed for a shorter period.

Captain RAMSAY: There might be a small increase. It would depend upon the terms on which the loan was borrowed, but I maintain that over a term of years there would be more funds with which to pay service, and that, therefore, you might be better off by a longterm loan. I do not want to go into that point any further, except to say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that I would like him to make some statement when he replies, as to whether he has considered the results that this Bill is likely to have upon the export trade of coal. An hon. Member on the opposite side of the House made a statement in which he pointed out the millions with which other countries subsidised their foreign export trade of coal, and although he did not bring out the fact that we also had to compete with countries like Germany, which pay very low wages, he made a very great point of the fact that we had very severe competition in the shape of subsidies with which to deal. Will my right hon. Friend say whether he has considered the effect on the export coal trade of the loss of the £2,000,000 a year, and, if so, whether he proposes to take any steps to counteract that effect?
On the subject of the distribution of the burden of this Bill, as far as the agricultural industry is concerned, I believe that I am right in saying that the decision to apportion the burden almost entirely on the arable portion of the industry was only recommended by a fairly narrow majority, and also that the Scottish farmers were not agreeable to this decision. The effect of it will be to put the entire burden as far as agriculture is concerned on to the arable section of the industry. Although I and many hon. Gentlemen who are associated with me intend to do nothing more at this stage, unless the Minister can make some further statement on this subject, we reserve the right to put down an Amendment in Committee on the subject of potatoes. This great industry, which has been put upon its feet in a most remarkable way during the last few years, will be considerably affected by the Bill, and it is an industry in which Scotland is particularly interested. In


Scotland the advantages gained by the wheat subsidy and other measures have not been at all commensurate with those gained in England, and Scotland, to the best of my belief, did not through its Farmers' Union consent to the terms of the distribution of the burden. We therefore would ask the right hon. Gentleman to let us know whether, in fact, any consideration can be given to this section of the industry, and, if not, we must reserve the right to put down Amendments in Committee on the subject.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Evidently this Bill is not exciting the general interest in the House which might have been expected, for it covers a very large question of principle of railway freights, but there are evidently more exciting happenings in Parliament at the moment and therefore we do not seem to have any complaint. I think it wise to rise now and try to get some assurance from the Minister of Transport. There have been occasions when the Minister, before he accepted the Cabinet responsibility which now attaches to him, might well have replied to us upon a Debate like this, "Of course, there are other issues arising in connection with this Bill which are really covered by other departmental Ministers," but in this case the matter has been discussed pretty well ever since the litigation, and it has been known to the public. Therefore if he is not willing to accept the spirit of the reasoned Amendment which we have put down, he ought to give certain assurances if we are willing not to divide against the Second Reading of the Bill. If he is not prepared to give any assurances, then he must not complain if we divide the House on the reasoned Amendment to the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill.
I am not going to attempt for a moment to deal with the very intricate legal position arising from the decision of the Court of Appeal on the Act of 1929. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt), I think, said all that needs to be said about it, but I want to emphasise what has been said by my hon. Friend on these benches as to the intention of Parliament in 1929 with regard to the relief of certain industries by means of

these railway freight rebates. While we recognise quite clearly that, in view of the bigger situation created by the judgment of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke to-day, something has to be done in order to meet the position of the fund, we have not had the slightest assurance from the Minister that the other considerations are to be met. His reference to the local authorities to-day, as I understood it, was that the Bill which is now before the House had been agreed upon with the representatives of local authorities. Is that so? I want to be quite clear about it.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I did not state that the Bill had been agreed upon by the local authorities, who, of course, have nothing to do with the Bill. I said that there had been agreement between the railway companies and local authorities as to what sums should be payable by the railway companies by way of rates rather than carry the litigation further. The local authorities do not appear anywhere in this Bill, which arises out of the judgment in the House of Lords.

Mr. ALEXANDER: They do not appear in the Bill. I have no doubt that with regard to the situation arising out of the judgment they would be consulted. As my hon. and learned friend the Member for North Hammersmith put it, they had in their wisdom to try to avoid the three companies being put into the same position of difficulty, and no doubt there had to be some arrangement made. Now that I understand the position of the Minister on that matter, am I right in saying that in the understanding which was come to with the local authorities there was the most distinct reservation that they must be free to move for the amelioration of the rating revenue position of local authorities which arises out of this judgment? Is not that right?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: This Bill is the outcome of the reactions of the judgment upon the fund. It does not purport in any way to deal with the general rating of the country. As regards the position of local authorities arising out of the difficulty generally, they themselves will be in negotiation with the railway companies, to try and spread the burden or something of that kind if they desire. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it would not be practicable to revise the whole rating law


of the country under this Bill, even if that were desirable. I understand that the local authorities are in negotiation with the railway companies on these other aspects.

Mr. ALEXANDER: The Minister has made a very correct ministerial statement, but he has also carefully avoided the point I tried to get from him. What is the intention of the Government in this matter in regard to the relief of the position now created with the local authorities? When the Minister speaks about local authorities now being able to negotiate in order to ameliorate their position under the railway companies, it does not meet the situation. Will the Minister answer the points which I am putting to him? First of all, in the case of local authorities, can he assure us that it is the intention of the Government as a result of this judgment to restore the position of the local authorities in principle to the original situation of the 1929 Act, so that ultimately the revenue which they have lost will be restored in the future? That would be one reason why we should not divide against the Bill.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. and gallant Friend will give an answer, unless the right hon. Gentleman wants the answer now.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I do not mind. In the second place I want to press strongly the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith with regard to the statement of the Minister, that in fact the Bill brings relief to industry. It does not require a very long examination of the particulars of the Eleventh Schedule of the Local Government Act, 1929, and of the way in which the Bill deals with that Schedule, to show that there are wide ranges of industry, particularly in the agriculture and the by-products connected with it, which will be very severely hit by the failure of the Bill to keep in operation the relief which they at present enjoy. On that point, the Minister, in explaining the Bill, said that, of course, the Bill was in a large degree an agreed Measure because there had been consultation with that industry. He ought to tell us with whom consultation took place. I have never heard anything about consultation, and very often on

such questions I am consulted. There is a very large freightage interest with which I am concerned in connection with the organisation which I represent, and we have had no consultation.
This question reacts not merely upon a section of producers but upon consumers. Take the provisions dealing with agricultural products, manure, grain, oil cake, meal, carrots, potatoes, etc. From the list we see how very important it is to many interests, one of which I am watching, that they should not lose their present concession. Very often in the actual working out of the freight rebate it may mean under the old arrangement from 15 to 17 per cent. on what would be the ordinary rate, and it is obvious that the removal of that rebate is going to make a substantial difference in the price of a particular commodity. I should like to know who was consulted on that matter, and on what basis.
I should like also to support very strongly the case put very ably by the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) in regard to the special position of export coal. After reading the Debate on this Bill in another place I do not think that the answer made on behalf of the Government to the case put by Lord Gainford on the position of export coal was adequate. Having regard to the extent to which that case has been emphasised by representatives in this House of the industrial side, the miners' side, it is due from the Minister to say exactly what the Government will propose, if this more or less technical Bill is allowed to go through, in order to restore to that industry and to other industries the same rate of relief as they have been receiving in the past in regard to their freight rebate.
In regard to the general financial position of the companies it has been made clear that we do not wish to interfere with the legal rights of the railway companies to obtain their judgment. The railway companies in the past have been granting their freight rebates to various interests, including iron and steel, coal and agriculture, out of this special fund which was created. Somebody is going to get an advantage out of the judgment of the court, and it seems to me that it will be the railway


companies. At any rate, they will not be the losers. They will be receiving a revenue roughly equal, and possibly increasing, to the amount that would formerly have had to be paid into the fund. There is sufficient ground for us to ask that in future out of their increased revenue they should continue, in whole or in part, the freight rebates at present enjoyed by the different sections of industry to which I have referred.
All will depend very largely upon the answer which the Minister is prepared to make as to what the Government propose to do in order to restore, in effect, in these industries what it was obviously the will of Parliament in 1929 should take place, and that is, that those industries should be relieved, and that the local authorities if they are to lose in any sense revenue with regard to the rating of hereditaments should, nevertheless, be reimbursed. If the Government can give us assurances on this point I will consult with my hon. Friends with a view to our not dividing against the Second Reading of the Bill.

5.52 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) appeared really to welcome the Bill. He said that, on the whole, the lines on which we propose to deal with the situation met with his approval and that he considered, as far as I could gather, that the law as regards rating should be altered. The right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) appears to agree with him. I think, however, that they will agree with me that we cannot possibly deal with a subject of such magnitude and complexity in a Bill of this kind, which has to be put through Parliament as a matter of some urgency. The hon. and learned Member also spoke of an undeserved gift to the railway companies. He and other speakers have a very wrong idea of what this Bill actually does. The railway companies always said that they were overpaying. They always said that these rates would be brought down, but the Railway Rates Tribunal had to go on the only figures available.
I should like to put this point as strongly as I can, that in the two five-

year periods, if correct assessments had been taken and there had been no delay owing to litigation, the railway companies Would have paid only the reduced sum which we are now saying will have to be paid for the future, that is, that the sum of 8d. is to become 5½. That has arisen because the railway companies in the past have been paying on fictitious figures. Therefore, if anyone has received an undeserved gift, surely it is the owners of the goods which were conveyed during that period by the railways. It is, however, impossible to get back that money now.
It would be well if I briefly summarised what is in the Bill, because there seems to be some difference of opinion as to its scope. The object is twofold. First, to enable the Fund to repay to the railways what they have paid out in error, £9,750,000; and secondly, to adjust the list of commodities which get the advantage of the rebate in accordance with the reduced income of the fund, the reduced income being £2,300,000 as against £4,000,000 before. It is proposed under the Bill to bring that about, first, by the proceeds of the issue of stock by the Railway Clearing House, who are the statutory trustees of the fund, which shall be repaid over a period of 16 years. It is not the Government who owe this money, but the fund. Therefore, when the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) says that he would pay it from the Budget, he would be paying from the Budget not something which the Government owe but something which is owing by a fund which was brought about by Act of Parliament. We propose to deal with the reduced income by concentrating the reduced rebate on two commodities, 80 per cent on export coal, which will get a rebate of 5½d. instead of 8d., and 20 per cent., the remainder, on milk and livestock, which will get a rebate of about 13 per cent in carriage charges as against 15 per cent under the old scheme.
The question of agriculture was raised by the hon. Member for Hallam (Mr. L. Smith) and the hon. and gallant Member for South Midlothian (Captain Ramsay). They seemed to thing that other commodities besides milk and livestock should have been included in the commodities covered by the Bill. We consulted the Minister of Agriculture who, in turn, consulted the National Farmers' Union, who


recommended what we are doing. One hon. Member said that they only did so by a small majority. We realise in this House that we must accept the views of the majority, and I do not see what we could have done in the circumstances except to take the best advice we could of those who represent the industry. That applies to fertilisers, feeding stuffs and potatoes. Reference has also been made to the period of the loan. It has been suggested that the period should be 30 years rather than 16 years. We are advised by the Treasury that 16 years is the period by which we shall get the best conditions for raising such a loan. The hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) seems to take the view that railway rates are abolished by the decision of the House of Lords. They are not abolished, but reduced. There will be some £2,300,000 coming into the fund as against £4,000,000.
What I should like to impress on the House, and it also applies to something that was said in the opening speech for the Opposition, is that the Bill is not taking away something. What it is doing is to give to the export coal industry a rebate of 5½d. where they now get 8d. If this Bill were not passed they would get nothing at all. The fund would be completely bankrupt.

Mr. BEVAN: The hon. and gallant Member is misrepresenting our view. That is not how we described it. We said that the Bill fails to maintain the rebate of 10½d. a ton.

Captain HUDSON: We have to accept the position as it is and not as we should like it to be. The hon. Member talked about allowing the law courts to legislate. The rebates are not decided by this House or by the Ministry of Transport but by the Railway Rates Tribunal, according to the amount available, and what we are doing is to deal with the position as it is. The hon. Member asked whether the Government have considered what will be the effect of passing this Bill. Of course, they have. It is a Government Bill. I did not gather from him, or from any other hon.

Member for Ebbw Vale that the Government, even if they wished, could not deal with the coal industry by means of a subsidy under this Bill, which simply carries on the fund in the circumstances as they are after the judgment of another place. The right hon. Member for Hillsborough asked whom we did consult. We consulted the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Ministry of Mines, who in their turn consulted the industries concerned. That was the only way in which we as a Government Department could act. The right hon. Gentleman also asked what is going to be the position of local authorities. In any event it is too early to raise that question as reliable figures of the losses of local authorities are not available and will not be available for some time. They are now being ascertained and it will be for the Government Department concerned to examine them and if necessary bring forward their suggestions. But, in any case, and I desire to emphasise this, it could not possibly be dealt with under a Bill of this kind.
In conclusion I should like to mention the reasons for the urgency of the Bill. If we leave things as they are the indebtedness increases at the rate of £50,000 per week. Also the Railway Rates Tribunal must meet very shortly if they are going to fix the new rates before the 1st January, and, finally, we wish if possible to get an issue of the loan made not too close to the Christmas holidays. These are the reasons why we have perhaps rather rushed hon. Members opposite in taking the Second Reading of a Bill which was only printed yesterday morning, and I appreciate the fact that they have not made any complaint. They realise that there is a certain amount of urgency. We hope that the Bill will settle a difficult problem. It is not pleasant for us on this side of the House, any more than for hon. Members opposite, to envisage the coal trade having to get a rebate of 5½d. instead of 8d., but the situation having arisen the Government had to deal with it. We feel that the Bill is the best way in which it can be done.

Mr. L. SMITH: The Parliamentary Secretary has said that the Treasury advised that 16 years would give better terms in regard to the loan, but he made no suggestion as to lengthening the


period which might bring more money into the fund. May I ask him if he can open up negotiations with the Railway Rates Tribunal to find out whether a lengthening of the period would be acceptable to them and in that way ease the situation?

Mr. BEVAN: The coal trade will be losing in the circumstances created by the Bill a rebate of 2½d per ton, and I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the Government have taken that into account? It is not provided for in the Bill. Have they in contemplation some other proposal to deal with the situation

Captain HUDSON: That is a question for the Mines Department. I have no

possible means of knowing. No doubt they know what is happening under the Bill and that 2½d. is being lost to the export coal industry. They will no doubt keep that situation seriously before them when they are dealing with the Special Areas. As regards the loan, we have been in negotiation with the railway companies and as a result these proposals are made in the Bill. The question of a longer period was considered by the railway companies, the Treasury and ourselves, and it was decided that a 16-year period was preferable.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 97.

Division No. 33.]
AYES.
[6.8 p.m


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Denville, Alfred
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.
Leigh, Sir J.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Doland, G. F.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Albery, Sir Irving
Donner, P. W.
Levy, T.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Liddall, W. S.


Apsley, Lord
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Lloyd, G. W.


Assheton, R.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Loftus, P. C.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Atholl, Duchess of
Ellis, Sir G.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Elliston, G. S.
MacDonald Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)


Baxter, A. Beverley
Elmley, Viscount
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Entwistle, C. F.
McKie, J. H.


Belt, Sir A. L.
Erskine Hill, A. G.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Blair, Sir R.
Everard, W. L.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Boulton, W. W.
Foot, D. M.
Markham, S. F.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Ganzonl, Sir J.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.


Boyce, H. Leslie
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maxwell, S. A.


Brass, Sir W.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Mellor, Sir. J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Gluckstein, L. H.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Gower, Sir R. V.
Mills, Major J, D. (New Forest)


Bull, B. B.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Granville, E. L.
Morgan, R. H.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cir'nc'st'r)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Cary, R. A.
Griffith. F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Munro, P.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Grimston, R. V.
Neven-Spence, Ma). B. H. H.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Nicolson, Hon. H. G


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Guy, J. C. M.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br.W.)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Patrick, C. M.


Channon, H.
Hallgers, Captain F. F. A.
Peat, C. U.


Chapman, A. (Ruthergien)
Honeage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Penny, Sir G.


Chorlton. A. E. L.
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.


Clarke, F. E.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Petherick, M.


Colman, N. C. D.
Hopkinson, A
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Porritt, R. W.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir R. S.
Procter, Major H. A.


Craddock, Sir R. H.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Radford, E. A.


Crooke, J. S.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Ramsbotham, H.


Cross, R. H.
Hunter, T.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Crossley, A. C.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cruddas, Col. B.
Keeling, E. H.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Culverwell, C. T.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Dawson, Sir P.
Latham, Sir P.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Denman Ho R. D.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Rowlands, G.




Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Spender-Clay Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Salmon, Sir I.
Spens, W. P.
Warrender, Sir V.


Salt, E. W.
Storey, S.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wedderburn, H.J. S.


Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
Wells, S. R.


Sandeman, Sir N. S
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
White, H. Graham


Scott, Lord William
Sutcliffe, H.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Seely, Sir H. M.
Tasker, Sir R. I.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Selley, H. R.
Tate, Mavis C.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Windsor-Clive, Lleut.-Colonel G.


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Titchfield, Marquess of
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Touche, G. C.



Smithers, Sir W.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Turton, R. H.
Dr. Morris-Jones and Lieut.-Colonel


Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Liewellin,


Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)





NOES


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hardie, G. D.
Potts, J.


Adamson, W. M.
Hayday, A.
Price, M. P.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. Y. (H'lsbr.)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Pritt, D. N.


Ammon, C. G.
Hopkin, D.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Riley, B.


Banfleld, J. W.
John, W.
Ritson, J.


Barr, J.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Batey, J.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Rowson, G.


Bellenger, F.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Salter, Dr. A.


Benson, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Sanders, W. S.


Bevan, A.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Sexton, T. M.


Broad, F. A.
Kirby, B. V
Silkin, L.


Brooke, W.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees-(K'iy)


Burke, W. A.
Leonard, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Chater, D.
Leslie, J. R.
Stewart, W. J. (Wght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cluse, W. S.
Logan, D. G.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cove, W. G.
Lunn, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dagger, G.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Thorne, W.


Dalton, H.
McEntee, V. La T.
Thurtie, E.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McGhee, H. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Maclean, N.
Viant, S. P.


Ede, J. C.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Walker, J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mander, G. le M.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Marshall, F.
Westwood, J.


Gardner, B. W.
Maxton, J.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Messer, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Montague, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Young Sir R. (Newton)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Oliver, G. H.



Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Groves and Mr. Whiteley.


Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Sir G. Penny.]

Orders of the Day — TRUNK ROADS BILL.

As amended, considered.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
In moving briefly the Third Reading of this Bill, I would like to thank hon. Members in all parts of the House for the assistance they have given—and the spirit in which they have given it—in framing a Measure the general principle

of which has been generally agreed. I realise that the Ministry of Transport is now being entrusted with a delicate and difficult task; but whereas in the past I have been able to avoid certain questions put to me in the House about roads by saying that I was not the highway authority, I am now to become the highway authority in respect of 4,500 miles of the through routes of this country. It will be our endeavour to bring them to perfection, to improve them as avenues of communication, to give them all the features that modern roads should possess; but I warn the House, as I have already done, that there is bound to be a considerable lapse of time before these improvements can be put into operation on this vast system of trunk roads.

6.19 p.m

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: I rise to give the Minister an opportunity of making Some more explicit statement than he did on Second Reading with regard to a problem which interests very greatly many of my hon. Friends on this side. I would like to ask him what he intends to do with regard to the problem of major bridges. In the course of his Second Reading speech and previous speeches, the right hon. Gentleman indicated—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): The right hon. Gentleman is now dealing with a matter which does not arise on the Third Reading. He cannot deal with what is not in the Bill.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I did not intend to refer in detail to the matter, but merely wanted to point out the reasons we were not prepared to assent to the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman cannot discuss on the Third Reading what is not in the Bill.

Mr. AMMON: Is it not possible to ask for information as to whether the Minister is prepared to implement a promise he made that he would give this further consideration?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Not if it is on a matter which is not in the Bill.

6.20 p.m.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: I shall be delighted to see this Bill passed, because I think the purpose for which it is designed is a most admirable one, and because I think a Bill to place the great trunk roads of the country under one general administration has been proved by practice to be very necessary. There is only one comment I wish to make. In several places in the Bill there is a considerable alteration of a practice which has previously existed. For example, when independent highway authorities were in existence there were many occasions when they came into conflict with private rights and on other occasions, I will not say they came into conflict, but they got into situations in which there were differences of opinion with certain of the public utility authorities. In the main, when any such difference of view arose, matters were settled by a reference to the Minister of

Transport. Since the Minister of Transport has become the highway authority for these great arterial roads, it is plain that unless some alteration is made he will become the judge in his own cause which, as everyone knows, is entirely obnoxious to the whole principle upon which English administration is founded.
In these circumstances I think it would be wise and prudent of the Minister to provide in the Bill some arrangement by which he would not be put into a very awkward and embarrassing position —an arrangement which would ensure that on occasions when differences arose between his personal opinion as Minister of Transport and any of the other interests, people would be assured that justice was entirely balanced. I am not for one moment suggesting that either the present Minister or any future Minister would be likely to deal otherwise than what he regarded as impartially with any such matters, but as you know, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, with your long practice of the law, even where there is what is called in law a challenge to favour, no matter how impartial the judgment may be, any decision may be upset by reason of the fact that the person was giving a judgment in which there was a challenge to his favour. In these circumstances, I should think the Minister of Transport would be willing to get over such an awkward position. I remember the words used long ago by Robert Burns in one of his poems:
When self the wavering balance shakes, It's rarely right adjusted.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Richt."] I was quoting it to a more barbarian audience. I am sure the Minister would be anxious that he should not be saddled with any possible form of suspicion, or what we call in Scotland a backspang, from anybody who found he was aggrieved in such a matter. I hope the Minister will be able to give an assurance that he will be prepared to act in that manner, and that he will be able to find some method by which his judgment may be entirely removed from any personal bias towards the opinion which he has already formed. I hope that either now or in another place by some means an arrangement can be made in order to render these conditions satisfactory. I am certain the Minister will realise the importance of this matter, and I would like to have from him some definite assurance.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. TURTON: When the Minister introduced this Bill on Second Reading, I think we all felt that the Bill contained complete power to take away from the local authorities the maintenance of certain principal roads. I think we all paid far to little attention to one Clause that was, and still is, in the Bill; that is, Clause 2. When hon. Members reconsider this Bill in the light of that Clause, they will realise that along these roads —whether they are principal or not is another matter—whenever they get to a big town the Minister will have no power under this Bill—he has other powers—to get uniformity on them.
In my view, the problem of the roads at the moment is one that chiefly concerns the built-up areas. It is there that traffic is most dense, that more children are in danger of their lives and that by-passing is of first-class importance. If we pass the Bill in its present form, with Clause 2, all the very large towns will be excluded from the Bill. Even when large towns make a by-pass, with the extension of the boundaries of county boroughs, they will still be out of the Bill. I am very concerned about that provision in the Bill. Why has the Minister included it? He told us on Committee stage that his reason was that the Urban District Councils Association were against giving up their power to him.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The county boroughs.

Mr. TURTON: Yes, the county boroughs did not want to give up their powers to him. What will become of Parliament if anybody who does not want to give up powers to the Minister when he is bringing in a Bill which he claims to be as important as this succeeds? The West Riding County Council have written to all hon. Members saying that they do not want their roads to be taken over. In that case, why is not every road in the West Riding County Council excluded? Why does the Minister not listen to their views? It seems that the county boroughs have the ear of the Minister; whatever they say he is willing to carry into effect. That is a very bad aspect of this Bill. The Bill really stands or falls by what is in the Schedules. As in all cases of nationalisation, it depends on what one is going to nationalise. We have to consider whether all the roads that are in

the Schedules should be in them. In the course of the Debates on this Bill the Minister has sought to justify the inclusion of roads in the Schedules.
There is one statement he made relating to two of the roads in the Schedules that I would ask him to correct now. He referred to the road in the Schedule which goes to Middlesbrough and the road to Hull and mentioned certain distances. He said that from Middlesbrough to Scarborough was 35 miles, and from Scarborough to Hull 25 miles. Some of us showed how uneasy we were at that statement because those distances are inaccurate. I have tested them by the Automobile Association's road map and I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman, being Minister of Transport, would go by road and would not fly to those places. The distances I find are 48½ miles from Middlesbrough to Scarborough and 42½ miles from Scarborough to Hull. In order to score on the Committee stage the Minister told us that it was 25 miles and he was very annoyed when we said that the figure was not accurate. Even as the crow flies it is 37½ miles from Middlesbrough and Hull. I think that shows that in that area there is a great gap in the map in connection with this Bill.
There are two other points which I wish to raise, and which concern me even more intimately. When I was speaking upon the Penrith-Middlesbrough road I submitted a certain suggestion, which my council had made most reluctantly, that that road should be excluded from the Schedule in return for another road. The Minister made a certain amount of play with that suggested exchange and described it as a "swap," a word which was never used by those who were making the proposals. I ask the Minister now to tell us who initiated the suggestion of that exchange which he ridiculed in the House. I hope he will answer that question because the local authority has been placed in a very difficult position by the ridicule which the Minister put upon that suggested exchange. If a higher 'authority initiated that suggestion there are only two roads in this Schedule which the North Riding County Council could exchange. One is the Great North Road and the other the Penrith-Middlesbrough road. It would be ridiculous to suggest that the Great North Road should be taken out of the. Schedule and it was left to them to


decide whether they should offer the Penrith-Middlesbrough road and they did so most reluctantly. I hope the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary will tell the House what is the truth about that suggested exchange.
The last point I want to raise concerns a statement made by the Minister at the end of his speech two days ago. Describing the activities of my hon. Friends and myself in advocating a view in which we believe, and which we consider to be in the interests of our constituencies and of the nation, the Minister said:
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton will on reflection appreciate that he does little service to the county …. "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1936; col. 987, Vol. 318.]
That was by advocating the inclusion of a certain road which I would be out of order in speaking upon to-night. What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by that? Is it a threat? I want to know, because, as this Bill has taken a certain course, there is a road on which we shall have to ask for grants. If the Minister, by these words, is levelling a threat at my council, then I think it is a most monstrous statement to make to this House and one which is not worthy of the dignity of the high office which he holds or the distinguished Cabinet of which he is a member. [Laughter.] It is all very well for the Minister to laugh. The people in the local authority have to administer their roads, and remarks such as that cause grave disquiet and do nothing to uphold the opinion which they have of the Minister. In view of what I believe to be the ill-weighted arrangement in the Schedule, whereby roads in the South are getting an Advantage and roads in the North are getting none—this is brought to such a pitch that there are nine roads in this Schedule leading out of London and not one road going through or near the second capital of England, the city of York—in view of these things, I shall not be able to vote with the Minister on the Third Reading, and if a Division is challenged I shall be in the other Lobby.

6.36 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE:: The catchment boards are very anxious about the effect of this Bill on some of their present powers. Under Section 64 of the Land

Drainage Act they have certain powers as regards bridges over which trunk and other roads are carried. Sub-section (1) of that Section is as follows:
It shall not be lawful for any person except by way of replacement or reconstruction of an existing bridge to construct a bridge over the main river of a catchment area without the consent (not to be unreasonably withheld) of the Catchment Board and unless the bridge is constructed in accordance with plans and sections approved by the Catchment Board.
The restriction laid down by that Subsection is applicable to all highway authorities. Is the protection thus afforded to the catchment boards to be removed in the case of trunk roads, inasmuch as the Minister of Transport would apparently come within the wording of Subsection (4) of the same Section of the Land Drainage Act which says:
Nothing in this section shall be taken to be in derogation of any provision having, the force of law by virtue of which the consent of any Government Department is required for the erection of a bridge over any waters, or by virtue of which any powers are exercisable by any Government Department in relation to such a bridge.
When the Land Drainage Act was before Parliament the Trunk Roads Bill was not anticipated. It was not anticipated then, that the rights which catchment boards have as regards their bridges would be taken away under Sub-section (4). I understand that the Minister has already given a promise to the Catchment Boards Association but I would be glad if he could see his way to give a guarantee in the House, so that it should be recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT, to the effect that even if the catchment boards do not get the full measure of protection provided for in the Land Drainage Act, they will at least be consulted in reference to bridges constructed to carry trunk roads over main rivers and also the approaches and any other works in connection with such bridges. The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries is primarily concerned with matters connected with land drainage and if, by any chance, it is not found possible to consult the catchment boards concerned, on any proposed action by the Minister in regard to bridges, I ask whether it would not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to consult with the Minister of Agriculture on the matter. I hope he will realise that there is a certain difference in regard to this matter between the catchment boards and other authorities, for


this reason, that the catchment boards are charged with the drainage, and that he will be able to give a declaration on the lines of the letter which, I understand, he has already written on the subject.

6.39 p.m.

Major Sir JOHN BIRCHALL: I desire, if possible, to obtain a definite statement from the Minister on the subject of the proposed bridge over the Severn.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Severn Bridge proposal does not come into this Bill, and it would not be in order to raise the matter on the Third Reading.

Sir J. BIRCHALL: I was not going to discuss the scheme, but merely to ask the Minister for a definite statement that any question of making that bridge and the approaches to it part of a trunk road in the immediate future would not be ruled out under the Bill. It is a question of great importance, and I think the Minister has not dealt quite definitely with it. If I could obtain a ruling from him on that point, it would give great encouragement especially to the depressed areas of South Wales.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I am rather sorry to have to raise the point of order, but is it not the case that a ruling has already been given from the Chair that it is out of order on this occasion to bring in any of the bridge schemes that were discussed during the Committee stage?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is exactly the Ruling which I have given. I have said that the hon. Member cannot raise the question of the proposed Severn bridge at this stage.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: I wish to ask a question about bridges which I think is in order, because the matter is dealt with specifically in Clause 6 (3), where the Minister takes power in certain circumstances to construct bridges under or over trunk roads. My point is one of interpretation. The Bill, of which I am very much in favour, is a little difficult to read because, of necessity, it contains a great many references, some of them of a rather complicated character. Assume that the Minister exercises this power under Clause 6 (3) and that, as a result, a bridge is to be constructed under

or over a trunk road. The public utility authorities such as water authorities, gas and electricity authorities, and, it may be, tramway authorities, in certain cases may be involved in considerable difficulty if this happens, because their surface works and sub-surface works may be affected. I am not clear as to where they stand in relation to this Sub-section and whether the Minister may not be imposing upon them a very unfair burden without taking the necessary power to compensate them.
Some of my hon. Friends and I put down a proposed new Clause which, I understand, could not be selected because, in the form in which it is drafted, it could be taken to impose a charge outside the scope of the Financial Resolution or certainly a charge which a private Member would not be permitted to propose by way of an Amendment of this kind. But I think it is possible that what we desire may be achieved in the Bill as it stands. I hope that such is the case and that the Minister will be able to give us an assurance as to the correct interpretation of this Sub-section.
Another point concerns the same public utility authorities who at present are in a certain relationship to the highway authorities. The highway authorities can do certain things, and then the public utility authorities are entitled to compensation. I am not clear what the obligations of the Minister to those public utility authorities will be when he becomes a highway authority—I am not referring now to the bridges question merely but to the general question—and whether those obligations will be the same as the existing obligations of highway authorities. There is no reason why a municipality or a company carrying on a public utility should be placed at any disadvantage by a Measure which is not primarily concerned with them. I am sure there is not the slightest desire that the law should be altered as regards the relations between the highway authorities and the public utility authorities. As I find it, difficult to understand the significance of the Bill, I hope that the Minister will be able to calm my mind and give me some comforting assurances on the matter.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. G. STRAUSS: With many other Members of the House I am still worried


about certain questions, which have so far remained unanswered. Members who represent county boroughs and those who have any knowledge of the traffic problem in London are not entirely satisfied that those areas will not be neglected as a result of the Government taking over the trunk roads. The Minister has given some very cogent reasons why the trunk roads, when they pass through county boroughs, should not be included in the Bill, but what we are worrying about is that the money which will be spent on the trunk roads under the Minister's control may be so much that when London or the county boroughs come along and ask for grants towards equally urgent, and possibly more urgent, road improvements in their areas, they will be told that the Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are very sorry, but there is not enough money left for them. It is true that we were assured by the Parliamentary Secretary that the Ministry of Transport had no intention of altering the present grant formula, but that is not the point. The point is whether, when we come along with big new schemes involving a large amount of money, we shall be told by the Minister that he has not sufficient money to contribute towards them and that, therefore, we must drop the schemes altogether. I hope that we shall get some assurance on these lines which will be more definite than those we have had so far.
I take it that when the Minister takes over the trunk roads he will be in the same position in this House as any chairman of a highways committee of a county council or county borough council; in other words, that he will have to be prepared to answer detailed questions about improvements of roads, the lighting of roads, and so on; that he will answer members of Parliament directly on any matters that they may bring up in connection with roads, particularly roads passing through their constituencies; and that he will not be able as he has been able in the past when Members have suggested road improvements, to say that it was not his function but the function of the local authorities. I would also like to ask him whether he contemplates issuing a report in the form of an annual report or a White Paper on his activities on the

trunk roads. If he is taking over 4,5000 miles of trunk roads it will be extremely interesting—and I am sure that outside-the House there is a large section of the community which would be interested —to know exactly what has been done on the roads, what improvements have been carried out, and what plans are in contemplation. I hope that the Minister will be able to announce that he intends to make a comprehensive report once a year on the work he has accomplished on the trunk roads.
My main concern about this Bill is not the provisions, with which I agree, but the manner in which they will be worked. When the Minister has control of these roads, is he really going to use that control energetically and courageously to carry out the many long overdue improvements? I do not want to quote again, for I quoted it on Second Reading, the record of the Ministry of Transport in regard to road improvements and the money spent on them. I showed then that the Ministry's record was a bad one and that it had been spending comparatively little money, nothing like as much as the Labour Government spent in the period 1929–31 to improve the road system of the country. I fear that the same spirit which has slowed down road works during the last few years may still prevail and that after we have given the roads over to the Minister, we may he no better off and possibly worse off.
My fear is not just a wild and irresponsible one, but it is based on the ascertained activities of the Ministry of Transport during the past four or five years. When I made that criticism before, the Parliamentary Secretary said, "The hon. Member speaks as a member of the London County Council and we always look upon the county council as a very lethargic body." In order to prove his words he said that the county council had not yet sent in its five-year plan. To that I replied that we sent in our five-year plan very quickly. I have looked up the matter since, and I find that it was sent in within three months of its being asked for, that is to say, on 21st May, 1935. We sent in then all the schemes which we had in contemplation as far as was possible in view of the inquiry set up by the Minister himself into the London road position. There was, therefore, no justification for


that statement. If the Parliamentary Secretary considers the present council lethargic in its road work, what epithet would he apply to the previous council, which carried out only one-quarter of the work of the present council? I am concerned as to the manner in which the Government will use the powers given to them by Parliament in this Bill, and if we could have some assurance that it is the definite intention of the Minister, once he has control of these roads, to do very much more to them than was done before, and that he really intends to use his powers boldly and energetically, I think that every Member on either side of the House will vote for the Third Reading with a lighter heart.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. AMMON: We shall not vote against the Third Reading of the Bill subject to the points which have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss) and others. We must naturally welcome the Bill as an advance in public service and ownership. There is a point I would like to raise in connection with the powers which the Minister assumes, and it arises in Sub-section (4) of Clause 6. I understand the Minister will have the power, if he thinks proper, to provide better illumination for the trunk roads. That means, I presume, that he will have to put down transformers in order to reduce voltage. Will the Minister be able in his new powers to consider the possibility of enabling villages or even farms to tap that lower voltage and so get a supply at a cheaper rate than they would have to pay if they got the current direct from the grid? This is a matter which concerns a good many people in the villages close to the trunk roads which the Minister seeks power to illumine if and when it is thought necessary.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I rise again only by the leave of the House, and as I have been asked for one or two declarations perhaps I may speak again. It would be a pity at this stage of the Bill to get into bitter controversy. That temper has been conspicuously absent from the Debates hitherto. I must, however, endeavour to answer the points that have been put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and

Malton (Mr. Turton) and the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss), and I will try to do so with complete control. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton took exception to certain words which he alleged that I had used about him in the course of the Committee Debate. I can assure him that I did not take exception to his words, although perhaps I had far stronger reasons to do so. If he does wish to pick a quarrel with me, I hope that he will, at any rate, read the passage of which he complains. This was the passage:
I hope. that my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton will on reflection appreciate that he does little service to the county"—
That is where my hon. friend stopped. I went on to say:
which, after all, has received something, to come down to the Committee and complain in almost every sentence of the great ignorance of everybody in the Ministry of Transport and of everybody who disagrees with him." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1936; col. 985, Vol. 318.]
He will realise that the only sense in which I thought he did a disservice to the county was in assuming that the officers of my Department and the Parliamentary Secretary, who are in amicable relations with the county, should be described as devoid of knowledge of the subject with which they are charged to deal. That, I hope, will dispose of the matter because it would be futile to wander along this famous road to Scarborough now. We know almost every inch of it verbally as the result of the discussions we have had, and I must commiserate with my hon. Friend that his powerful advocacy has not succeeded in getting that road inserted in the Bill. I wish there had been some means of doing it, but in accordance with the principles which we have adopted, it was not open to me to yield to his coaxing—a modest word to use for the speeches of my hon. Friend. With regard to the hon. Member for North Lambeth, I do wish he would not come here and speak every time in a tone of complaint about my Ministry, endeavouring to put it into conflict with the London County Council.

Mr. G. STRAUSS: I did not do it; it was the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The hon. Gentleman must grant to my hon. Friend the


Parliamentary Secretary the right to retort in kind. If he makes charges that my Ministry is lethargic and that it is not as good as it was in the days of the Labour administration, he cannot resent the fact that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, with greater justice, says that the London County Council is not so good as it was when there was a Conservative majority.

Mr. AMMON: That would not be accurate.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The fact is we have a five-year programme of works—and it will include the major works to which the hon. Gentleman referred—which I think exceeds in magnitude anything that has ever been done previously. Of course, it takes years to accumulate the maximum expenditure on road works. If you initiate a programme you spend little in the first year and more in the later years, but if the hon. Member will look at our programme of schemes which have been submitted by local authorities, which now amounts to £140,000,000, he will realise that this is considerable. When roads are built, I desire them to be used equally by Socialists and Conservatives. They are a public utility and I do not wish to set political obstructions on them. Let us all, therefore, work for the same end. My Ministry has acceded to some of the requests made by the hon. Member's council, and I had thought that our relations were friendly, at least in the sense that the relations of the Government with foreign Powers are supposed to be.

Mr. G. STRAUSS: Except on one matter.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Except on one matter, and I do not know what that is. I was asked about bridges by the right hon. Member for Stirling and Clackmannan (Mr. Johnston) and by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Leeds (Sir J. Birchall), but I am not permitted to answer these questions because they were out of order. I will say that nothing in this Bill alters the position of bridges that are not included in the Bill.

Sir J. BIRCHALL: Are we to understand that there is nothing in the Bill by which the Minister can say in six or 12 months time, when an agreed

scheme for the Severn Bridge comes along, "You should have produced this before the Bill was introduced"?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, Sir, there is nothing in the way. I cannot say more than that. I was asked for a declaration by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), and I would say that it is hardly likely that I should desire to execute works which were unreasonable or detrimental to the legitimate interests of a railway or canal undertaking, because I am also a railway and a canal Minister besides being a roads Minister. I, therefore, will say that if there were some point in dispute on which the technical advisers of the railway company and of the Minister took different views, and which could not be settled in the usual way by a conference between the Department and the company, the Minister would be prepared to consider obtaining some further report, before coming to a final decision, by some engineer of eminence on whom we could agree. I hope my right hon. Friend will agree that in the absence of any provision in the Bill I have gone the whole way to meet him, because as far as I foresee there is not likely to be any controversy between the railway companies and ourselves. With regard to catchment boards, I will say that I would not construct a bridge over a main river of a catchment area without consulting with the catchment board concerned, and in default of agreement with them I would not proceed further without consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture.
I was asked finally for a declaration about statutory undertakers. I realise that the Amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) were out of order, but I will say, first, on the point of compensation, that Clause 3 (1) states:
all functions which … were exercisable by highway authorities as respects county roads, … and any functions of construction, maintenance, repair or improvement exercisable as respects that road by a local authority shall … be exercisable by the Minister … and all enactments relating to those functions shall have effect accordingly.
It seems to me that, as I take over liabilities as well as assets, this provision would enable me to pay compensation to persons who are affected. I do


not wish to assume any privileges which a former highway authority did not enjoy, nor should I be asked to assume any liabilities for which they were not liable, but, apart from that, the point of compensation is, I apprehend, covered in the sense I have just mentioned. I regard it as important that in the near future there should be a comprehensive settlement of the relations between highway authorities and statutory undertakings. The present position, laid down in many Acts, local and public, is not satisfactory, and as successor to the highway authorities I will inherit that unsatisfactory position. Let us hope that opportunities for discussion will arise, and that we may in due course have a consolidation Bill.

Sir PAUL LATHAM: In dealing with the speech of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), the right hon. Gentleman talked about distances from Scarborough to Middlesbrough and Scarborough to Hull. Has he any figures different from those which he gave on the last occasion?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I do not see very much in the point whether the distance is 35 or 42 miles. I gave the figure I did on information supplied to me, which I trust was accurate. If it was not, surely we are not going to quarrel about it.

Sir P. LATHAM: The right hon. Gentleman will be liable to attacks for ignorance if the figures he gave are not accurate.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. Friend is far too courteous to call me ignorant. I realise he is trying to defend his hon. Friend, which is another instance of his courtesy. Let us assume that the distance is 42 miles. If that be so, and I made an error, I offer my humble apologies on the altar of my hon. Friend's good will, and I hope he will gather up this posy and take it back to Scarborough so that our relations may be sweetened. The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) asked me whether it would be possible to tap certain lines so that cheap electricity might be available for lighting in rural areas. The Bill gives me power to enter into agreements with any lighting authority, and while I cannot be expected to say now in detail what we shall do, it is our intention to use the

best means of getting the best lighting in any given circumstances on any road.

Mr. AMMON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give attention to cheaper lighting?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I realise the point about cheaper lighting, and what is the best in given circumstances, and I hope the hon. Gentleman is satisfied with what I have said on these points. I omitted to answer two queries by the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss). One was whether Parliamentary questions could be addressed to me, not only about roads but about particular points on roads. Unfortunately— and I do not want to trespass beyond my functions— I imagine hon. Members will be in order in addressing such questions to me. That is one of the penalties of becoming a highway authority. The hon. Member also asked about an annual report. There is the Road Fund Report, which is an annual publication, but as I have to produce Estimates now, Parliament will require from me in the most convenient form whatever information is necessary in the discussion of my Votes. The Road Fund Report may not come out at the most convenient moment, but we will enter into that question and see what we can do to give Parliament the fullest knowledge. The hon. Member for South Croydon asked me whether under Subsection (3) it is explicit that where any road across a trunk road should pass under or over a road that I am constructing, there should be a bridge or crossing.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: The point was in relation to the sub-surface work of statutory undertakings. I do not know whether Clause 3 necessarily covers that point.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I do not think it does. I apologise to the hon. Member for not having taken a note of what his point was exactly, and I do not want to answer it without the fullest information or to dismiss it as unimportant. It can be answered in another place. It is the fashion to have perorations even in such a disjointed speech as this, so perhaps I may conclude by saying that I hope the prophecy of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will come true, and that the introduction and passage of this Bill will be remembered long after its critics, few though they be, are forgotten.
Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (AGRICULTURE) ACT, 1936.

7.14 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): I beg to move,
That the draft of the Unemployment Insurance (Private Gardeners Inclusion) Order, 1936, laid before Parliament on the nineteenth day of November in pursuance of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section fourteen of the Unemployment Insurance (Agriculture) Act, 1936, be approved.
It will be remembered that when the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee reported in favour of agriculture being included in insurance, private gardeners were omitted for the time being. The Committee considered that further investigation was required on this subject. One of their reasons for excluding private gardeners was that the extension of insurance to them would include a class of employers who had not hitherto been concerned in unemployment insurance. Agriculture was brought into insurance, but private gardeners were expressly excluded. In the proceedings on the Bill the Minister gave an undertaking that the question of the inclusion of private gardeners should be referred to the Statutory Committee. Power was reserved in that Bill for the Minister of Labour, if he thought fit, to include private gardeners in the agricultural scheme by an Order of this kind. The question was accordingly referred to the Statutory Committee on 23rd April. The Committee presented their report on 3rd July.
Before making their report the Committee took all pains to ascertain what was the prevalent opinion, either in favour of or against inclusion, among private gardeners themselves. In addition to the normal form of publication in the London and Scottish Gazettes, notices were inserted in papers dealing with gardening matters, the views of bodies of employers and of employed were canvassed, and, in addition, the chairman of the Committee on 11th May issued, so to speak, a questionnaire over the wireless. The response to these various communications showed that there was a general desire that

private gardeners should be included in agricultural unemployment insurance, and therefore the Committee had no hesitation in recommending that they should be included, and the draft Order before the House to-night is intended to give effect to their recommendations. The Statutory Committee pointed out that as far as they could judge from the census returns the general level of unemployment among private gardeners was a little below the general level of unemployment estimated for agricultural workers generally.
It is estimated that the number of private gardeners affected may prove to be 125,000. The Exchequer contribution under the agricultural scheme in respect of this number will be rather more than £100,000 a year, and this should be more than offset by the saving to the Exchequer, from 1st April, 1937, of the cost of unemployment allowances which would otherwise have been payable to unemployed private gardeners. No doubt hon. Members have in their minds certain border-line cases where the question arises whether the people concerned will be included or excluded, and I think that I cannot do better than read a passage from the report of the Statutory Committee:
Second, there is the case of the man working partly as a gardener and partly in other capacities for the same employer. Undoubtedly, in a good many individual cases, the question will arise as to whether the employee should be insured under the agricultural scheme, the general scheme, or not at all. But questions of this kind have arisen at the borders of the insurance scheme ever since it was established and have been dealt with administratively on principles that are now well established. There is no new difficulty of principle to contend with.
The Order, if it is passed, will operate from 1st February next, and that date will enable the necessary preparations to be made.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. AMMON: It would be ungracious if, when an opportunity presents itself, we should not show agreement on both sides of the House, and therefore the hon. Member need have no doubt about the Order being passed, but at the same time he will not begrudge us, shall I say, some note of congratulation when we say that his report has borne out what has been said from this side of the House again and again, that there was a large volume


of public opinion in favour of the extension of the Act in the manner he has indicated. He has also borne testimony to the sound economics of the situation, which have been pressed from time to time and over many years in this particular connection. I wish to thank the Minister of Labour for so quickly implementing his promise and bringing about this desired result. One question I should like to ask is whether a private gardener employed in the centre of a big town, with wages of £ a week, will come under the agricultural section or under the general scheme. The question has been put to me, and I should like the Minister to clear it up.

7.20 p.m.

Colonel Sir CHARLES MacANDREW: There is one point which I should like to raise. I doubt whether it is really in order and if it is not I shall resume my seat. Private gardeners are the one class of private servants who have been brought into unemployment insurance and, like other private servants to-day, they are liable to have the licence duty for private servants paid in respect of them. It seems to me that something will have to be done to prevent them from becoming a double charge on their employers. I think it will be of little benefit to gardeners if their employers are to be subject to paying licence duty as well as unemployment insurance. I hope the Minister will give me an indication of whether something can be done about that position.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. KELLY:: I wish to raise a point as to the position of the people, sometimes called groundsmen, who are engaged as gardeners and also look after ground which may be used as a playing field or for other purposes of that kind. I think the Department considered this matter in connection with the general scheme, but I am not aware that a definite opinion about this class of people was then expressed. I wish to know whether it is intended that these people are to come under this new Order or are to be under the general scheme. They are employed throughout the whole of the year at a weekly wage, and I think the conditions under which they work are much more like those of people under the general scheme; but in order to satisfy grounds men throughout the country I

hope that we may have a definite statement as to their position.

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: In answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), a person who is a private gardener will be insured as a private gardener regardless of the particular locality in which he happens to be situated. If his business is that of a private gardener he will be so insured. As to the question of licence duties, that does not really arise on this particular Order. It is another subject altogether, since it is a question of taxation. With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly), groundsmen will be included as gardeners.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft of the Unemployment Insurance (Private Gardeners Inclusion) Order, 1936, laid before Parliament on the nineteenth day of November in pursuance of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section fourteen of the Unemployment Insurance (Agriculture) Act, 1936, be approved.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1936, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of part of the rural district of Burnley, in the county palatine of Lancaster, which was presented on the 3rd day of November, 1936, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1936, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of part of the urban district of Llwchwr, in the county of Glamorgan, which was presented on the 17th day of November, 1936, be approved."—[Captain A. Hudson.]

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (LOCAL LEGISLATION CLAUSES).

Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the Procedure on Private Bills containing clauses commonly known as 'Local Legislation' clauses, and the respective functions of the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Committee of Selection (other than selection of Members


to serve on Committees) in relation to Private Bills; and to report whether any alteration in such Procedure or any rearrangement of such functions is desirable.

Ordered,
That the Committee do consist of Seven Members.

Committee nominated of Mr. Cape, Mr. Groom-Johnson, Mr. Ernest Evans, Sir Joseph Nall, Sir Hugh O'Niell, Mr. Tinker, and Mr. H. G. Williams.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered,
That Three be the quorum."—[Sir G. Penny.]

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ARMAMENT CONTRACTS (PROFITS).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir G. Penny.]

7.27 p.m.

Mr. HARDIE: I promised yesterday that at the first opportunity I would raise the question of the control of prices in the manufacture of armaments. It was quite evident from the attitude of the Minister yesterday that he knew that he was being pressed upon a subject about which he did not care to say too much. Those of us who come from the industrial areas know exactly what has taken place. There can be no excuse for not knowing what should be the price of any of these articles which we are producing for armament purposes. There is a basic price for every part of an aeroplane, every part of a gun, every part of large and small shells —for every detail in the production of articles of that kind. It is disheartening and disconcerting, with a Government claiming to be so capable as the present one, to find that it is almost impossible to get any definite information in regard to prices. There is no one acquainted with the trade who does not admit that there is a tremendous amount of fraud going on and swindling of the public generally, so far as the price of armaments is concerned. That statement does not apply to every firm. That statement applies to a certain number of firms. There are firms who feel that they have

a certain duty to perform and they perform it honestly, but there are a number of firms who are in combination who are simply making this the means of amassing wealth very quickly. They are the "get rich quick" type.
I know the difficulty of being able to call up the Minister to be present in a case like this, but that does not deter me one iota from saying what I want to say. On the question of the manufacture of aeroplanes, we have had statements from that bench that were made without the knowledge that they were true. Absolutely untrue statements have thus been made, and they ought to know that they are untrue, but they seem to be afraid that the public should get to know that the business people are so strong in their combinations and representation on that side of the House that they can at any time manufacture under conditions which allow them to get away with the swag. On the question of ordinary heavy and light castings, we are already being mulcted in prices for heavy castings that have no relation at all to the thing produced, and when you take the light castings that relate to the production of aeroplanes, questions put and answered in this House show that there is no desire on the part of the Government to give the slightest information on the subject.
We remember when the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence could not even reply to questions as to what was the combination of certain firms and why it was that one firm could be organised in such a way, evidently by the help of the Government, that they could become controllers of 19 firms, some manufacturing and some distributing. The danger of that is this: It is not only the question of control, but here we have a firm in control with the least possible knowledge of the manufacture. They have knowledge as to sales from the days when they began to sell bicycles up to the sale of motor cars, but in actual, scientific knowledge, in turning out, in production, they have no knowledge, yet this firm become what is called Rootes Securities, whatever that may mean. Why should it be, with all our engineering skill in this country, that highly skilled firms who are skilled in the active production of things should in any way be dictated to, controlled by, or handled by a group that does not know anything about those


things, just a group of financiers, with the huge Prudential firm behind them shoving up the money? And the Prudential has never yet shoved up money without a good prospect of getting a good handful back. In fact, it always looks for two handfuls hack for the one it gives.
It would seem to us that if the nation is in distress—I do not believe it is—and if these people opposite are always boasting about their loyalty, a word which sometimes stinks, the way it is used by people who are in every sense disloyal, there should be no necessity to have questions put in this House with regard to these firms. Even from the benches opposite questions come, because they know the dishonesty that is being practised. One would have thought that the flag-waving type of patriot would have said, "For my country I will act honestly in business, and I will produce machines at the lowest possible price and profit." But what are the facts? Are they not that the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence has had to set up a special committee, just the same as in some big works, where there is destruction by rats and mice, special cats are kept to try and kill them off. That is the committee's work, to try and get a check upon the rapaciousness of these flag-waving patriots.
I regret that there is no one representing the Department on the Government Bench, and I hope something will be done, and done quickly, because on the money already set aside, there are a great many people who are quite willing now to get rid of their little businesses and retire. Why should that be in a community where we are all supposed to be trying to do our best for the nation? Why should there be such conditions existing commercially that some small firms can already sell out and retire? It shows that there is something wrong, because in ordinary, everyday competitive business you cannot do that. Unless you have some monopoly of some kind or another, it cannot be done.
With regard to the production of aeroplanes, it is well known that certain things should not be made public, and yet when we had an exhibition of a 320miles an hour machine, carrying 20 tons, what did we do? Did we say it was to be kept secret? No; the Government

allowed this to be done; There was a special exhibition held, and the representatives of all other nations were called in to see this wonderful new thing that we had produced, and we were told that it was done to get sales. I ask any sane body of people, Has it come to this, that we are so honest in our ideas of warfare that we are only going to have the same brand of things that all the world knows about? We have seen that the idea of keeping certain things secret is not so much to advance the nation's interests as to advance the interests of certain commercial firms. Already they are trying to get agreement that the parts of an aeroplane, which is a very intricate thing, can be made at a great distance from each other and then assembled. As a practical engineer, I know how wrong that is. I do not care what they say to the contrary.
The difficulty is this, that we get appointed in this House a man, a capable lawyer, to co-ordinate all the different departments with regard to war service. Just imagine having a Defence Minister who has never been inside a workshop in a practical sense, and who has no sense of physics or engineering such as is required in making war material. And we say that this gentleman is going to be capable of co-ordinating all these things. The man who is going to co-ordinate things is one who understands what these things are. When the heads of departments talk to the Defence Minister in their own scientific and technical language, he cannot understand what they are talking about. It is impossible, because he has not got the training. The pull between one Department and another depends on who can make the best impression on the lack of knowledge of the Minister for the Coordination of Defence.
How does the Minister know that things are going well, as he says they are? Suppose you showed him six or seven different kinds of new aeroplane engines, and he had the power to say whether their manufacture was going on well or otherwise. He does not know, but he has to take the word of someone else. That is not control. You are not co-ordinating unless you know that the thing is right, but if you have to take someone else's word, it is a waste of time, and it is not making progress


at all, nor is it in any way putting production on a business basis. In conclusion, let me say that I have raised this question for the purpose of trying to get something done now in relation to prices. I repeat that there is not one article being made for which there is not a basic price in existence, and supposing anyone should challenge that statement, here is my reply: Every employer wants to get his work done by piece work. Why? Because he knows the cost of every part. I hope that whoever represents the Government will take my remarks to the proper quarter and ask for something to be done in regard to meeting them.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. KELLY: I should like to ask whoever is representing the Government whether there is a possibility of anyone representing the Department referred to by the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) replying to the charges which he has made with regard to the co-ordination of defence and the method of operating that Department. It is not only an engineering matter, although that is serious enough, with regard to the provision of the various materials and products that have been referred to many times in this House, but there are also textile and other materials that are being purchased at this time. We have had no statement up to the present as to what method is being adopted in order to see that the Government are having a fair deal and a square deal with regard to the enormous orders that they have given out.
We have been told that there is a Coatings Committee and a committee such as was described by the hon. Member for Springburn, that is supposed to watch for people who are believed not to be acting quite fairly and honestly, but surely that is not enough. We ought to be quite sure, not only in the matter of costs, but in the matter of the article produced, that it is being produced in such a way that if a moment ever comes when it has to be used on behalf of this country, we shall find that it is capable of carrying out all that was intended when the order for it was given. We know very well, from past experience, that when many things which were ordered and stored had to be used, they were found not to be up to the standard that their makers had been paid for. I would ask, if it is the Patronage Secretary who is going to reply, that he

will make, not only this House, but the country assured that everything that is being engaged upon by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence is being done in such a way that the country may be satisfied that, whatever it expends, it will be to the advantage of this country and will not be wasted.

7.44 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson): Knowing the capabilities of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, I think I can give a full assurance, not only to the hon. Gentlemas opposite, but to the House as a whole and to the country outside. I give that assurance in the absence of the Minister, who, I regret to say, was not informed by the hon. Member opposite that this Debate was going to be raised to-night. I am not complaining of that, because it has arisen owing to the fact that the business has been got through at an earlier hour than was anticipated. I have heard certain parts of the discussion, and I shall see that my right hon. Friend's attention is drawn to what has been said.

Orders of the Day — INTERNATIONAL TRADE.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: I rise to call attention to a question of international trade which I raised on 17th November, when I asked the following question of the President of the Board of Trade:
Whether, in view of the willingness of the United States Government to enter into negotiations for a bilateral treaty for the mutual reduction of tariffs with this country, he will state the attitude of the British Government?
He gave a reply which showed that certain
exchanges have taken place … of a purely informal and exploratory nature and no proposal to open negotiations has been made or received."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1936; col. 1490, Vol. 317.]
I cannot help thinking that that answer leaves the matter in a rather unsatisfactory state and that some statement from the Government of a more reassuring nature is desired. I am encouraged to ask for a more satisfactory reply because of certain words which occur in the Gracious Speech from the Throne. Those words are:


My Ministers will continue to foster industrial activity at home and, in the belief that the attainment of general prosperity here depends on further expansion of our overseas trade, to maintain their efforts to promote the freer exchange of goods throughout the world.
Negotiations of this kind must curely come within the four corners of the policy which the Government intend to pursue.
I do not know what the real position may be, but I believe that an impression has been created in interested circles, in the United States and in this country, that the Government are not at all anxious that a Treaty of this kind should be put through. It is alleged, I hope without foundation, that there is certain obstruction to serious negotiation, and that the Protectionist interests and policy of the Government, and the interests which are fostered by them, are taking up an attitude which will make it difficult for concessions to be made. I hope the Minister will be able to dissipate those impressions and to show that there is no foundation for them. Nothing would please me better.
It is only fair to point out what the United States have already done. Secretary of State Mr. Cordell Hull, who is extremely anxious to obtain an agreement of this nature, has power to do so in the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, 1934, under which, without legislation, he can reduce tariffs mutually up to the extent of 50 per cent. He has actually negotiated 14 such agreements already with countries as important as Canada, France, Belgium, Holland, Brazil and Sweden, and in the course of those agreements no fewer than 550 items have actually been mutually reduced. It seems to be the Government's policy to reduce tariffs mutually, where they can. It is clear also that it would be very desirable to take advantage of any opportunity to co-operate with the United States, and that to secure their good will would be of immense importance, quite apart from the particular trade interests involved. I invite the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department to be good enough to say, if he can, that the Government would readily respond to any invitation or definite proposal which may be put forward by the United States, and would be only too delighted to try to arrive at a mutually satisfactory Treaty for the

mutual reduction of tariffs between the United States and this country.

7.50 p.m.

Captain EUAN WALLACE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I am very glad that I was able to get back to the House in order to answer the very important question which the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) has raised. I have looked up the question of 17th November, when this point originated. The hon. Member was rather too ready, if I may say so with respect, to take my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade up, and to assume from the answer which he gave that His Majesty's Government were not willing to enter into negotiations with the Government of the United States. I have not the slightest hesitation in giving the hon. Gentleman, and the House, the general assurance for which he asks. It is not for one moment to be assumed that His Majesty's Government are unwilling to enter into trade negotiations with the United States. On the contrary, they are very ready indeed to do so, if a satisfactory basis of negotiation can be found. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is in line with our general trade policy, which is to work for a reduction of trade barriers, from which reduction this nation and the Empire would probably benefit more than anybody else.
As the President of the Board of Trade explained on 17th November, informal and exploratory exchanges have taken place already, and they are still proceeding. The hon. Gentleman is a sufficiently close student of the League of Nations to realise that probably the best and most successful conferences are those which are adequately prepared. In the opinion of the Government—I think I can say it is an opinion shared by the Government of the United States—formal negotiations at this moment might be not only useless but even harmful, because of expectations which might be aroused. We therefore do not want to start formal, or full dress, negotiations, unless we have a reasonable certainty that they will come to a satisfactory conclusion and that we are going to get something out of them. I hope the House will realise that a very careful study indeed has to


be made before we can have the assurance that a formal trade agreement with the United States is necessarily going to result.
In order to show the hon. Gentleman some of the matters which have to be considered, let me point out one or two important classes in our imports from the United States. A very considerable proportion of them are on the free list. We cannot do more than that. This class includes raw cotton, fur skins and sulphur, and accounted for £15,000,000 out of £82,000,000 worth of goods which we took from the United States in 1934. There is another class of goods which is subject to our ordinary revenue duty, and which forms a substantial element in the balancing of our Budget. This class includes tobacco, motor spirit and other refined oils, and turpentine, and accounted for a total of nearly £20,000,000 in 1934. There is also a third group, including raw, dried and canned fruit, copper, certain kinds of timber and cer-

tain kinds of leather, which is subject to commitments which we undertook under the Ottawa Agreements. Of the remainder of our imports from America, a substantial proportion competes with products of United Kingdom industry, as, for instance, motor vehicles, which we imported to the value of over £1,600,000 in 1934, and over £2,400,000 in 1935.
I put those figures before the hon. Gentleman and the House in order to show them, if I may, that there is a good deal of preliminary spade work to be done before we could start formal negotiations. I would like to repeat that His Majesty's Government have reason to believe that the Government of the United States, despite the pronouncements of Mr. Cordell Hull, which we cordially endorse, share our view that the moment is not ripe for the opening of formal negotiations; but we are still at work.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes before Eight o'Clock.